Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

a reply to: RazorV66

The issue is never the issue.....

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: RazorV66

The issue is never the issue.....

Reading quotes from that guy makes my skin crawl.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

We'll see their appeal soon enough. July 11 is the first day they can submit it.

Not necessarily true. While they may wait because having Biden jail him will bring in hefty donations, they can appeal right away to the Supreme Court. They do have to find a justice who will issue a stay but it IS possible to skip over-steps.

a reply to: network dude

a reply to: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Sookiechacha

can you just answer one simple question for me please.

What should the entry of paying his lawyer have been listed as to make this not a crime?

Ever get that answer?

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: network dude

a reply to: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Sookiechacha

can you just answer one simple question for me please.

What should the entry of paying his lawyer have been listed as to make this not a crime?

Ever get that answer?

not in multiple threads asked in many different ways. it's beyond obvious these ass clowns haven't a clue, they just think this is a win against OMB. And as usual, it will bite them in the ass soon enough.

But someone posted an important aspect of this in another thread. The SCOTUS needs to make a ruling on the lawfare and stop it. Not because Trump or anyone else has total immunity, but because this can't continue. If Trump, rightly had Obama and Biden jailed, and persecuted/prosecuted as they have done him, then where would it end? Having Doug Bergram arrested and charged when he is elected in 2028? I don't think Trump will go down that road, but I think I would, and that worries me for the nation.

a reply to: network dude

I don’t see how after years of Democrats false allegations and harassment, this isn’t seen for the harassment it is.

a reply to: network dude

Or..

Sad when someone “breakups” with the democratic party the democrats turn into full “stalking mode.”

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: network dude

I don’t see how after years of Democrats false allegations and harassment, this isn’t seen for the harassment it is.

it won't be seen until it happens to them. Then it will be an outrage and a threat to democracy. They really are this #ing stupid.

a reply to: network dude

What should the entry of paying his lawyer have been listed as to make this not a crime?

This is a lesson in what not to do, not a "how to do accounting" lesson.

Allen Weisselberg shouldn't need a jury to instruct him how to properly record expenses, so as not to cover-up hush payments to protect a candidate from salacious gossip just before an election.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

What should the entry of paying his lawyer have been listed as to make this not a crime?

This is a lesson in what not to do, not a "how to do accounting" lesson.

Allen Weisselberg shouldn't need a jury to instruct him how to properly record expenses, so as not to cover-up hush payments to protect a candidate from salacious gossip just before an election.

It is a simple question that for some reason you and your ilk cannot seem to answer.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If you're going to convict someone for making a mistake, don't you think you owe them the courtesy of telling them exactly WHAT that mistake was?

This is hilarious!

a reply to: underpass61

It wasn't a mistake. The jury found intent, Mens rea.

a reply to: Edumakated

It is a simple question that for some reason you and your ilk cannot seem to answer.

There is no real question here.

The jury found that there was a deliberate effort to hide the purpose of the monetary disbursement to Micheal Cohen. They found that the creative bookkeeping was deliberately mis-recorded to fraudulently hide the hush-money.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So the next time you get pulled over, you'd be fine with the cop handing you a ticket saying, "You know what you did".

What a joke

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So if paying a lawyers isn't legal then what should this have been filed under?

*Hint*
It cannot be campaign finances.

a reply to: underpass61

That's not what happened here.

Shhesssh, the willful ignorance is thick with you guys!

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

So if paying a lawyers isn't legal then what should this have been filed under?

*Hint*
It cannot be campaign finances.

Trump wasn't convicted for "paying" his lawyer. He's being convicted for:

He illegally falsified business records to hide his reimbursement to Cohen for the $130,000 Cohen paid to buy the silence of porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election about an alleged sexual encounter she had with Trump in 2006.

To be sure, jury deliberations are secret and the reasoning behind the decision to convict will not be clear unless any jurors decide to speak publicly.

www.usnews.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's not only exactly what happened, it's exactly what you described.

The jury found that there was a deliberate effort to hide the purpose of the monetary disbursement to Micheal Cohen. They found that the creative bookkeeping was deliberately mis-recorded to fraudulently hide the hush-money.

The ignorance sure is thick, but "you guys" isn't the problem.

It's the same problem repeated with things like the 14th amendment, Russia gate, Ukraine gate, J6, FISA spying ect ect ect that you find yourself on the wrong and propagandized side of.

a reply to: JinMI

It's not only exactly what happened, it's exactly what you described.

WRONG! Get your facts straight!

Trump was NOT convicted, on 34 counts, for paying his lawyer. He was convicted for falsifying business records on 34 counts.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yeah I'm pretty thick - c'mon Sook help me out