Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

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.

originally posted by: UKTruth
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.

I understand what was done, but I also understand that to explain that, shows where the problem with this case is.

The misdemeanors had to be tied to a felony to be used. they are claiming that because Cohen pled guilty to a felony in relation to this case, that makes Trump guilty and that is the felony. Trouble is, Trump never pled guilty to that crime, nor was tried and convicted of it. So they used a fabrication to convince the idiots who suck the toes of the left that this was all just and true.

But I'm still lost on how paying for an NDA is illegal. or if it's not, then listing the payment to the lawyer who did the deal was illegal. that part isn't clear at all. and all the idiots can do is post the court docs, they can't explain the crime.

He didn’t commit a crime. But 12 people agreed to he did a crime, so there. Nyah Nyah. He’s guilty. Welcome to Stalin’grad.

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.

That is not how the law works.
It's quite scary that anyone would even think that.
The law requires intent to commit a crime.

Please show the evidence you have reviewed that highlights that Trump asked Cohen to enter his payment to a whore as legal expenses for an NDA for the purposes of trying to win the election.
Keep in mind that through this period the news cycle was already interviewing a whole string of women on TV who were claiming they slept with Trump - in a coordinated effort to smear him with the clear intent of stopping him getting elected. Some other whore from a decade prior would not have made a blind bit of difference.

a reply to: UKTruth

The law requires intent to commit a crime.

And falsifying business records, which is what happened IS A CRIME.

originally posted by: EndTime

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?

are you stating that the ledger entries were falsified? Remember, Trump is guilty of falsifying records. So what records did he falsify? His lawyer did the deal, then invoiced him. He paid the invoice, and his accounting team called the payment to his lawyer a legal expense. If nobody changed any entries, or hid them from view, then where is the "false entry"? remember, you are posting as if you understand this.

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.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: UKTruth

The law requires intent to commit a crime.

And falsifying business records, which is what happened IS A CRIME.

How were the records falsified?
It was a legal expense, no?
If not, explain what the entry should have been.

In addition - even if was knowlingly falsifying business records - that is NOT what this case is about.
The statute of limitations had already passed on that and it is a misdemeanor in US law.

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.

Hiding NDA under misleading business expense, on top of suppressing information to keep voters in the dark during election year, which apparently constitutes interference. There's only so many words for describing this effect.

a reply to: network dude
What crime did Trump commit? According to the Democrats it's a crime just being Trump.
Here's a nice one for you, what if Cohen was a long time plant and his sole job was to f### up Trumps books to fit a crime.

a reply to: UKTruth

Here is more information regarding the NY law and how it can be charged as a felony, not a misdemeanor, the investigation into why he has not yet been charged federally for violating NY election law.

Lawfare

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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.

Hiding NDA under misleading business expense, on top of suppressing information to keep voters in the dark during election year, which apparently constitutes interference. There's only so many words for describing this effect.

I'm asking because I don't get it. NDA's have to be public? Doesn't that kind of negate the entire purpose of an NDA? And what should the entry have been?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: UKTruth

Here is more information regarding the NY law and how it can be charged as a felony, not a misdemeanor, the investigation into why he has not yet been charged federally for violating NY election law.

Lawfare

I appreciate that you bring links and all. But I am asking that someone who believes this is all correct, explain why it is. Explain where the crime is. Not what the court said, because we all seem to think they got it wrong. if they didn't, then it should be possible for YOU who believes this was the correct call, to explain why IN YOUR OWN WORDS. If you cannot, just say you don't understand it either.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: UKTruth
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.

I understand what was done, but I also understand that to explain that, shows where the problem with this case is.

The misdemeanors had to be tied to a felony to be used. they are claiming that because Cohen pled guilty to a felony in relation to this case, that makes Trump guilty and that is the felony. Trouble is, Trump never pled guilty to that crime, nor was tried and convicted of it. So they used a fabrication to convince the idiots who suck the toes of the left that this was all just and true.

But I'm still lost on how paying for an NDA is illegal. or if it's not, then listing the payment to the lawyer who did the deal was illegal. that part isn't clear at all. and all the idiots can do is post the court docs, they can't explain the crime.

There was no falsification of business records either IMO - although that question is not relevant.
Truth is that these WERE legal expenses if they were business expenses.
I guess the ONLY thing that could be questioned is whether Trump should have used his business to claim the expenses or whether he should have used his personal account.
It's likely that he should have used his personal account because legal expenses are written off against tax and it could be argued legitimately that these were not business expenses.

Again - though - not the real point of this case.

a reply to: UKTruth

How were the records falsified? It was a legal expense, no?

I admire your attempt to cover Trumps's back. but Hush Money has never been a legal expense. Not now and not ever.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: UKTruth

How were the records falsified? It was a legal expense, no?

I admire your attempt to cover Trumps's back. but Hush Money has never been a legal expense. Not now and not ever.

super. What should it have been listed as?

a reply to: network dude

What should it have been listed as?

Well maybe being honest about what the payment was really for would have been a good start.

Don't you agree ?

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: UKTruth

How were the records falsified? It was a legal expense, no?

I admire your attempt to cover Trumps's back. but Hush Money has never been a legal expense. Not now and not ever.

You are revealing yourself to be just a Trump hater and not serious - don't be that.
For clarity, I am not a Trump supporter and would like him to drop out of the race and never be heard from again.

What category is 'hush money' - a term made popular by the media.
Remember there is legal precedent that such payments are NOT illegal and break no campaign finance laws, or book keeping laws.

So , what was the category he should have used?
I would love to know.
Looking at my own accounting software , nothing seems to fit with 'hush money'.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: network dude

What should it have been listed as?

Well maybe being honest about what the payment was really for would have been a good start.

Don't you agree ?

It's a crime to not tell everyone - the entire world - that a whore is accusing you of sleeping with them?
Is that what you are saying?

You seem to be avoiding the question as to what this payment should have been listed as.
Why is that?

a reply to: UKTruth

such payments are NOT illegal and break nbo campaign finance laws, or book keeping laws.

They are not illegal that is correct.

What is illegal is paying hush money, but listing it as something else on your business acounts. Do you actualy understand that?