Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Then what would he need to do for them not to be false?

Oh, you already answered that above.

Derp

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: underpass61

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

I totally agree with you on this. I fully believe that Trump's accounting team not only meant to list the payment as a legal expense, but they likely even did so without remorse.

But since that's not actually a crime, but you are sure it it, the quesiton I still have, and the question you still have not answered, is what should the payment have been listed as.

If you don't know, just say that, but if you continue to smugly act as if you do, I'll keep asking, and continue making you look more foolish each time.

a reply to: JinMI

Then what would he need to do for them not to be false?

Properly account for the disbursement.

Again, this isn't about an accident. This was about a deliberate criminal act.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.

Yes. And the records he "falsified" were where the payment was listed as a legal expense. Is that true?

If so, then how should they have been listed so as to not make it a falsification? Remember, if you don't know, just say that.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Then what would he need to do for them not to be false?

Properly account for the disbursement.

Again, this isn't about an accident. This was about a deliberate criminal act.

Ah, we are getting close. Now, how should that have been done to make it not a crime?

a reply to: network dude

what should the payment have been listed as.

Not this:


www.usatoday.com...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

what should the payment have been listed as.

Not this:

www.usatoday.com...

so you don't know? Is that what's going on here?

a reply to: network dude

Are you a CPA or an accountant? I sure hope not!

Do you understand why even business expense items labeled "miscellaneous" need to be identified, legally? If so, then you also understand why legal expenses also need to be itemized and and can't just be hidden under some mysterious "miscellaneous legal expenses" moniker.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I am. Tell me what is wrong. A GL, which is the classified entry, can be pretty much anything as long as taxes are paid.

Were taxes paid?

The note that you think is the journal entry is a reminder. It even said Micheal will invoice us.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So...how do you suppose Jill Biden (FLOTUS) should categorize her campaign expenditure to fly from England back to the US to watch Hunter Biden's trial and felony conviction????

And, how was this a campaign expense??? So she could glare at the jury and hope to intimidate them into not finding Hunter guilty? So it wouldn't reflect poorly on Joe Biden? Isn't this "Election Interference"??? The same thing you all were accusing Trump of?????

a reply to: matafuchs

Yes, they were. Too many in fact. Trump overpaid his taxes if I'm not mistaken.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

He grossed up the check so Cohen would not have to lose any money to straight taxes. Trump did not have to do that.

a reply to: matafuchs

I am. Tell me what is wrong.

What's wrong is that jury said that the entry was not an accounting error, but it was "falsified" in furtherance of another crime; the violation of tax and/or election law, to which the judge provided clarity on for the jury.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So...how do you suppose Jill Biden (FLOTUS) should categorize her campaign expenditure to fly from England back to the US to watch Hunter Biden's trial and felony conviction????

LOL Really? Is that your reasoning for why Melania never showed up and stood by Trump while he was on trial, at all, and only showed up for his conviction? Yeah, that's it, it must have been the campaign finance laws.

Look, I can find all kinds of reasons why the 1st Lady, campaigning for her husband's re-election, would attend their son's criminal trial, as a show of family unity, support, strength, self-control, going through hard times together, when the chips are down, etc.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

What's wrong is that jury said that the entry was not an accounting error, but it was "falsified"

In accordance with what law? What was falsified. In a system where buying a client a lap dance can be written off as a business expense. How was it even a crime.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
in furtherance of another crime; the violation of tax and/or election law, to which the judge provided clarity on for the jury.

So no proof of any specific crime. Just Trump has to be guilty of something. Has the same credibility Trump is guilty because he is orange.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

NDA’s are legal. Trump has a history of using NDA’s regardless of running for office. There is a history of politicians using NDA’s to hide actual accusations of crimes of harassment.

What should the listed entry have been.

originally posted by: network dude

But since that's not actually a crime, but you are sure it it, the quesiton I still have, and the question you still have not answered, is what should the payment have been listed as.

If you don't know, just say that, but if you continue to smugly act as if you do, I'll keep asking, and continue making you look more foolish each time.

Just the fact they call it hush money to imply some level of crime and not an NDA tells everyone what they want it to be. It's like calling a woman a slut because they are not a virgin. NDAs are used all the time, in this case, his lawyer took care of it and even paid for it, so what do you call it BUT lawyer fees?

The part I don't get is what if they called it The Purple Monkey, does the labeling matter if the money entry is correct?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

" What's wrong is that jury said that the entry was not an accounting error, but it was "falsified" in furtherance of another crime; the violation of tax and/or election law, to which the judge provided clarity on for the jury."


The Jury said Nothing of the Kind , they were told that by the Prosecution , which by the way did not provide them with Any Evidence to Substanciate it . You do Need to Pay more Attention to the Facts Dear..........

a reply to: Lazy88

In accordance with what law

In accordance with the laws on which Judge Merchan briefed the jury.


static01.nyt.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There is no law listed there. Why didn’t you quote the part where the “ the violation of tax and/or election law, to which the judge provided clarity on for the jury” was cited by the judge as a theory for the “hidden” crime? So the crime was just theoretical. When is US law based on conviction people on a theoretical crime? It’s supposed to be 12 jurors unanimously finding someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on a Specifically named crime.

So. You still have cited how the invoices were a fraud for a legal NDA. And you still have no proof of a crime to cover up.