Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
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.

but that is where my problem lies. The "bribe" was a legal NDA. She had the choice to not take the cash, or to try to extort more from him, but she agreed to that number. She was supposed to not talk about it. She did, so she is guilty of breaking a contract, but unless there is a law against NDA's, where is the crime? that again is my question.

a reply to: network dude

The general public sees New York as being run by criminals with Hitler mindsets. Crimes fabricated against targeted individuals.
😈

originally posted by: alldaylong
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...

The crux of the case is that the bookkeeping entries were in furtherance to commit campaign finance fraud in a federal election.

The problem is that the 'other crime' was never proven and indeed the body who has jurisdiction on such matters investigated and dropped the case.

a reply to: network dude

His crime was that his accountants used an obsolete bookkeeping system that offered limited options for categorizing expenses. The only option that came near to describing that expense was "legal expense".

originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: network dude

His crime was that his accountants used an obsolete bookkeeping system that offered limited options for categorizing expenses. The only option that came near to describing that expense was "legal expense".

but if he had the best accounting software ever known to man, the greatest ever, like nobody has ever seen before, what category should this have been in?

originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: network dude

His crime was that his accountants used an obsolete bookkeeping system that offered limited options for categorizing expenses. The only option that came near to describing that expense was "legal expense".

I think the new systems have a drop down option of
'paid off a whore who is accusing me of shagging them'.

a reply to: network dude

and yet you haven't a clue what any of that means.

I'd say it is you who doesn't have a clue what that means , to everyone else it's clear that paying a dodgy lawyer to hide your dirty secret so it won't effect your election campaign is dishonest and unlawful .... unless your name is Donald Trump of course then it seems it's everybody else's fault.

You call yourselves Patriots yet your patriotism is to a man not your country , shameful.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alldaylong
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...

The crux of the case is that the bookkeeping entries were in furtherance to commit campaign finance fraud in a federal election.

The problem is that the 'other crime' was never proven and indeed the body who has jurisdiction on such matters investigated and dropped the case.

Nonsense.

The 77-year-old is the first former president in US history to be criminally tried and convicted. He was found guilty of falsifying business records in relation to a hush-money payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels.

www.bbc.com...

a reply to: network dude
lol, the most obvious response will be "nobody is above the law" and "it doesn't matter, he will forever be a convicted felon" but you bet your bottom dollar anyone attempting to actually explain the crime will make a fool of themselves attempting to do so. They will even have to roll their eyes at themselves realising the mental gymnastics they are attempting to pull off to make any sense of the actual legal process. it's ok though, I just sent in my sixth $100 donation for the year to the campaign.

The good news, now that nobody is actually above the law, there should be no gnashing of the teeth when perjuror Fauchi is finally indicted and hopefully arrested after Trump returns to the Oval Office and an actual justice department gets to work. Not to mention Biden have classified secrets he was never cleared to have access to prior being appointed to his current position by the globalists, the foreign agents in congress Menendez and Cuellar, Mayorkas for derelection of duty, Fanni Willis may actually get a proper corruption investigation, West Coast and Southwest politicians working for the cartels traced back through various donations by individuals and NGO's, the list goes on.

The globalists are very sore losers and prefer to muck things up really nice when they do not get their way. It is why they are desperate to stay in power, because they realize they are the ones who are not above the law and will soon find out when their agents are thrown out of power.

The General Counsels office determined that:

As such, the available information indicates that Cohen made, and Trump and the Trump Committee knowingly accepted, a contribution in excess of the amount that Cohen was legally permitted to contribute to Trump’s campaign.

Moreover, due to Trump’s and Cohen’s deliberate concealment of the Clifford payment scheme, the available information further indicates that the Trump Committee failed to publicly disclose the resulting contribution, as required under the Act; because Cohen obscured the true source of the Clifford payment by making it through Essential Consultants, an LLC that he created and used for that specific purpose, Cohen, Essential Consultants, Trump, and the Trump Committee violated the Act’s prohibition on contributions in the name of another. In addition, the available information supports a reason to believe finding that the Trump Organization, through its partial reimbursement of Cohen for the Clifford payment, violated the Act by making a prohibited corporate or excessive contribution, and Trump and the Trump Committee, in turn, violated the Act by knowingly accepting that contribution. The available information indicates that there is reason to believe that all of these 5 violations were knowing and willful. The available information indicates that Cohen’s payment to Clifford was “coordinated” with Trump, i.e., it was made “in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of” Trump.

The Commission has consistently found that payments by a third party that are intended to influence an election and are “coordinated” with a candidate, authorizedcommittee, or agent thereof result in a contribution by the person making the expenditure to the candidate or political committee with whom the expenditure is coordinated. The available information includes both direct and circumstantial indications that Cohen coordinated with Trump — i.e., that he acted in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of Trump. Conversely, the record provides little basis to conclude that the Clifford payment was made for personal reasons — i.e., to protect Trump and his family — as Cohen claimed before his guilty plea,145 and as Trump has publicly asserted.

The available information provides no support for the argument that the Clifford payment was made to preserve Trump’s marriage or personal relationships.

Moreover, neither
Trump nor Cohen previously attempted to buy Clifford’s rights to the story before Trump became a presidential candidate; despite becoming aware of Clifford’s interest in selling those rights as early as 2011, when Bauer Publishing paid Clifford $15,000 for an exclusive interview, Trump and Cohen did not offer to pay Clifford to remain silent — i.e., “catch and kill” the story — until Trump became a presidential candidate.

While preventing the publication of Clifford’s allegations may have provided a personal benefit to Trump by protecting him and his family from a salacious story, any such personal benefit was incidental to the election-influencing purpose of the payment.

Under the Act and Commission regulations, therefore, the available information reflects that the Clifford payment was a $130,000 loan and a contribution to a federal candidate — i.e., an excessive contribution by Cohen to Trump and the Trump Committee.

Because a loan in excess of the Act’s contribution limitations is prohibited whether or not it is repaid, Cohen’s loan was prohibited irrespective of the fact that Cohen was eventually repaid.

Therefore, under this alternative analysis, we recommend that the Commission find reason to believe Cohen violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A) by making, and Trump and the Trump Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f) by knowingly accepting, an excessive contribution.

Yes, we know anything further was stopped due to the two GOP Commission members who voted against this decision and one GOP member who recused himself. In comments they never addressed Trumps culpability and stated Cohen being charged was enough.

There was determined to be evidence that Trump himself violated campaign finance laws by falsified business records and that Trump was aware of the scheme. There is much more in the report, it's 70 pages.

Yes, we know that this will not matter in this thread, however you should be aware of the FEC findings.

Link to download pdf of General Counsel report

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: network dude

and yet you haven't a clue what any of that means.

I'd say it is you who doesn't have a clue what that means , to everyone else it's clear that paying a dodgy lawyer to hide your dirty secret so it won't effect your election campaign is dishonest and unlawful .... unless your name is Donald Trump of course then it seems it's everybody else's fault.

You call yourselves Patriots yet your patriotism is to a man not your country , shameful.

projecting your insecurities is cute but ineffective.

If you know and can explain it, then do that. Prove that you aren't a clueless DERP. that would make me look stupid.
I just want to understand the crime. he porked a whore. She stared flapping her gums. His lawyer made a deal with her to sign an NDA in exchange for $130K. His lawyer invoiced Trump for $420K which included the payment to the whore, along with other things. That payment was listed as a legal expense. He ran for president and won.

those are the facts. Now, if we all agree those are indeed the facts, just explain where the crime is, or admit you don't know. it's just that simple.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: network dude

and yet you haven't a clue what any of that means.

I'd say it is you who doesn't have a clue what that means , to everyone else it's clear that paying a dodgy lawyer to hide your dirty secret so it won't effect your election campaign is dishonest and unlawful .... unless your name is Donald Trump of course then it seems it's everybody else's fault.

You call yourselves Patriots yet your patriotism is to a man not your country , shameful.

There is no distinction in the law of a personal assessment on your lawyer to determine a case.
So you first point about the lawyer being 'dodgy' in this case is bogus and irrelevant to the determination.
If it were, then said 'dodgy lawyer' would not have believed by anyone in court or by you.

Hiding dirty secrets is not unlawful - whether running for election or not.
If it were, then there would have been many precedents already set.
In fact, the precedent has already been set the other way, with John Edwards acquitted of campaign finance charges for hiding $1m in payments to a Mistress whilst running for office.
So, you second assertion that 'everyone thinks it's clear' is also bogus - and very ill informed.

You are showing yourself to be extremely unknowledgeable of facts and letting your Trump hate run your brain - even to the extent on believing that 'dodgy lawyer' wholeheartedly.
Rejoice in the outcome if you like if it floats your boat, that's up to you and if you hate the guy.
Says more about you, though.
But, you clearly have zero useful knowledge to be able to contribute to the discussion effectively.

originally posted by: frogs453
The General Counsels office determined that:

As such, the available information indicates that Cohen made, and Trump and the Trump Committee knowingly accepted, a contribution in excess of the amount that Cohen was legally permitted to contribute to Trump’s campaign.

Moreover, due to Trump’s and Cohen’s deliberate concealment of the Clifford payment scheme, the available information further indicates that the Trump Committee failed to publicly disclose the resulting contribution, as required under the Act; because Cohen obscured the true source of the Clifford payment by making it through Essential Consultants, an LLC that he created and used for that specific purpose, Cohen, Essential Consultants, Trump, and the Trump Committee violated the Act’s prohibition on contributions in the name of another. In addition, the available information supports a reason to believe finding that the Trump Organization, through its partial reimbursement of Cohen for the Clifford payment, violated the Act by making a prohibited corporate or excessive contribution, and Trump and the Trump Committee, in turn, violated the Act by knowingly accepting that contribution. The available information indicates that there is reason to believe that all of these 5 violations were knowing and willful. The available information indicates that Cohen’s payment to Clifford was “coordinated” with Trump, i.e., it was made “in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of” Trump.

The Commission has consistently found that payments by a third party that are intended to influence an election and are “coordinated” with a candidate, authorizedcommittee, or agent thereof result in a contribution by the person making the expenditure to the candidate or political committee with whom the expenditure is coordinated. The available information includes both direct and circumstantial indications that Cohen coordinated with Trump — i.e., that he acted in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of Trump. Conversely, the record provides little basis to conclude that the Clifford payment was made for personal reasons — i.e., to protect Trump and his family — as Cohen claimed before his guilty plea,145 and as Trump has publicly asserted.

The available information provides no support for the argument that the Clifford payment was made to preserve Trump’s marriage or personal relationships.

Moreover, neither
Trump nor Cohen previously attempted to buy Clifford’s rights to the story before Trump became a presidential candidate; despite becoming aware of Clifford’s interest in selling those rights as early as 2011, when Bauer Publishing paid Clifford $15,000 for an exclusive interview, Trump and Cohen did not offer to pay Clifford to remain silent — i.e., “catch and kill” the story — until Trump became a presidential candidate.

While preventing the publication of Clifford’s allegations may have provided a personal benefit to Trump by protecting him and his family from a salacious story, any such personal benefit was incidental to the election-influencing purpose of the payment.

Under the Act and Commission regulations, therefore, the available information reflects that the Clifford payment was a $130,000 loan and a contribution to a federal candidate — i.e., an excessive contribution by Cohen to Trump and the Trump Committee.

Because a loan in excess of the Act’s contribution limitations is prohibited whether or not it is repaid, Cohen’s loan was prohibited irrespective of the fact that Cohen was eventually repaid.

Therefore, under this alternative analysis, we recommend that the Commission find reason to believe Cohen violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A) by making, and Trump and the Trump Committee violated 52 U.S.C. § 30116(f) by knowingly accepting, an excessive contribution.

Yes, we know anything further was stopped due to the two GOP Commission members who voted against this decision and one GOP member who recused himself. In comments they never addressed Trumps culpability and stated Cohen being charged was enough.

There was determined to be evidence that Trump himself violated campaign finance laws by falsified business records and that Trump was aware of the scheme. There is much more in the report, it's 70 pages.

Yes, we know that this will not matter in this thread, however you should be aware of the FEC findings.

Link to download pdf of General Counsel report

so you understand this to the point you can explain it in plain talk? (that's a yes or no question)

a reply to: network dude

I will provide one, falsifying business records and found to do so via the guilty verdicts on the following 34 counts:


COUNT VERDICT BUSINESS RECORD DATE
1 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Feb. 14, 2017

2 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842457 Feb. 14, 2017

3 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number 842460 Feb. 14, 2017

4 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000138 Feb. 14, 2017

5 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust March 16, 2017

6 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number
846907 March 17, 2017

7 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account, bearing check number 000147 March 17, 2017

8 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump April 13, 2017

9 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858770 June 19, 2017

10 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002740 June 19, 2017

11 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump May 22, 2017

12 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 855331 May 22, 2017

13 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002700 May 23, 2017

14 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump June 16, 2017

15 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858772 June 19, 2017

16 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002741 June 19, 2017

17 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump July 11, 2017

18 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 861096 July 11, 2017

19 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002781 July 11, 2017

20 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Aug. 1, 2017

21 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 863641 Aug. 1, 2017

22 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002821 Aug. 1, 2017

23 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Sept. 11, 2017

24 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 868174 Sept. 11, 2017

25 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002908 Sept. 12, 2017

26 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Oct. 18, 2017

27 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 872654 Oct. 18, 2017

28 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002944 Oct. 18, 2017

29 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Nov. 20, 2017

30 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 876511 Nov. 20, 2017

31 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 002980 Nov. 21, 2017

32 Guilty Invoice from Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump Dec. 1, 2017

33 Guilty Entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 877785 Dec. 1, 2017

34 Guilty Check and check stub, Donald J. Trump account, bearing check number 003006 Dec. 5, 2017

a reply to: network dude

Probably legal expenses. The real crime was that his accountant didn't bother to make notations to the entry. Like to pay a crooked lawyer for specific services rendered.

The list if the 34 charges posted above is exactly the issue.
An uneducated copy and paste showing completely irrelevant information to the actual reason Trump was indicted.
For clarity 'falsification of business records' as highlighted above is a misdemeanor and the statute of limitations had already passed on all of them - which actually all relate to the SAME payment.

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?

originally posted by: charlest2
a reply to: network dude

Probably legal expenses. The real crime was that his accountant didn't bother to make notations to the entry. Like to pay a crooked lawyer for specific services rendered.

That's not the real crime.
At least not in this case.
If it were then the case could not have been brought as the time to prosecute had expired.
Even if it hadn't - Cohen - or the employee responsible for entering in the accounting payment - failing to notate a legal entry has nothing to do with Trump

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TzarChasm
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.

but that is where my problem lies. The "bribe" was a legal NDA. She had the choice to not take the cash, or to try to extort more from him, but she agreed to that number. She was supposed to not talk about it. She did, so she is guilty of breaking a contract, but unless there is a law against NDA's, where is the crime? that again is my question.

It was written off as a legal expense, which was false, and it was timed suspiciously in correlation with his election, suggesting an effort to influence voters. Double whammy.

This is what prosecutors argued and the jury seems to agree.

originally posted by: UKTruth
The above post is exactly the issue.
An uneducated copy and paste showing completely irrelevant information to the actual issue.
For clarity 'falsification of business records' as highlighted above is a misdemeanor and the statue of limitations had already passed on all of them - which actually all relate to the SAME payment.

Answer to a question. What was he found guilty of, answer shown Falsifying business records as justified by the count breakdown. Simple. No more, nothing less. Facts from the outcome of the trial.

This was the trial information. So, are you implying the court documents are fictitious?