Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Trump has faults. One of them is not admitting he's wrong.


He's admitted he was wrong to have hired Cohen.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TzarChasm

If justice was blind, then the collaboration before the 2020 election to suppress Hunters laptop could be seen as election interference.

If justice was blind.

Well, Biden and those 50 top intelligence officials better hope Biden wins in November, because based on what we just saw they will be banged to rights.
This is the problem - the door is now open to seize upon any effort to influence an election, which is what candidates and campaigns are supposed to do - that is not fully reported as part of a campaign.
Same with Hillary Clinton - she paid her legal team money to compile the Russian dossier and marked the expense as legal fees. That is now election fraud by this new standard.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: network dude

No. But I know 12 people who can tell you. 34 times. S'nuff for ya?

Gotta love Amerika, Comrad. (Yours not mine)
Peace!

😆✌️

Trump broke you bad.

If we were to follow your rhetoric to it's logical conclusion, appellate courts and supreme courts would never need to exist.

Hell, by your logic slaves would still available for purchase.

a reply to: UKTruth

And that's just the lowest hanging fruit.

Crossfire hurricane is the tree.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: TzarChasm

Trump has faults. One of them is not admitting he's wrong.


He's admitted he was wrong to have hired Cohen.

Still a better love story than O'Biden.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: UKTruth

And that's just the lowest hanging fruit.

Crossfire hurricane is the tree.

Indeed - so many are getting indicted if Trump wins of course, but that is a massive long shot.

What would be better is if Trump dropped out and DeSantis ran, won, and then used the Trump case as precedent to take a flame thrower to Washington DC.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Are we gonna get the sequel?

The Heiress?

a reply to: DBCowboy

oh my friend, that is the can of worms we cannot wait to open now that this precedent is set. I would pursue it even after the successful appeal and take everyone down. EVERYONE The FBI head, the news companies, the intelligence agents that signed their name to the letter. They not only get election interference, but obstruction of justice, libel and defamation, derelection of duty and all kinds of other things in addition to the election interference.

I am sure the idiots that made fools of themselves are now realizing this and stuck in a stupid face mode right now.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

no actually if you asked any of those 12 people in a live interview, they not only would look even more foolish than the folks of tried here, but would actually incriminate the judge and prosecutor without realizing it.

a reply to: UKTruth
hey, you stray out of my dreams you hear!

a reply to: UKTruth

Sadly, anyone other than Trump is probably already bought and paid for.

a reply to: UKTruth

I think Desantis would mirror a first term Trump with all the same D shenanigans.

I know you don't like it but it's gonna be Trump or a puppet from the D side.

We can only hope he's learned from his mistakes and traverses the delicate waters carefully but definitively.

a reply to: network dude

The crime ?

Well, don't you know ?

In 2016, IT WAS HILLARY"S TURN !!!
HER TURN !!!!

After all that Bill did to her, he OWED Hillary the Presidency as compensation !!!
And Trump took that away from Her !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ohhhh...that Man..!!.....


That's the crime....for libtards....

As explained earlier, these could be charges if he was on "trial" for campaign contribution violations. He wasn't. A person who testified not only that they paid someone with their own money from an LLC they created they also stole additional monies. Why did a porn star testify but someone from the FEC was not allowed to? These are misdemeanor charges that were bumped based on a crime not tied to Donald Trump.

Because of that, 12 signed checks, 10 invoices and 12 GL entries just created 34 felony convictions.

This is not about hush monies. This is not about campaign violations. It was bookkeeping. THOSE were the charges.

This in a city where an illegal alien can assault a police officer on camera and be out the next day charges dropped.

F'k NY and FJB.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: UKTruth

I think Desantis would mirror a first term Trump with all the same D shenanigans.

I know you don't like it but it's gonna be Trump or a puppet from the D side.

We can only hope he's learned from his mistakes and traverses the delicate waters carefully but definitively.

Here is the problem with Trump.
He would even welcome Bragg and Merchan with open arms and let them into his inner circle if they just gushed about him and praised him a few times.

Unfortunately Trump simply cant be trusted to get past his own ego.
Maybe he'll prove me wrong with his VP pick, but I am not going to be surprised if it's another establishment coward and back stabber like Pence.
All the people he has hinted at so far are career politicians.
How can he be so stupid as to be even considering a career politician as a running mate?

Of course, DeSantis is also a career politician, but in terms of actually winning he has the best shot IMO.
Also, he will have probably learned a lot from what the dems did.

For example the response to a bogus call for a special counsel on some new manufactured issue and for the AG to recuse himself?
Call a press conference and say:

"We are no longer falling for any Democrat tricks. Nothing they accuse anyone of will be taken seriously. There will be no special counsel.
I am creating a series of special counsels to investigate Washington corruption however and Democrats are not going to like who they are. Any complaints about it will be responded to with a 2 minute laughing video on X with thematic music for effect. Just to show we don't give two #s what the Democrats think. They can try to impeach and remove me and if they want to do that - have at it - otherwise STFU"

Having read all the way through all of this, it is as clear as 6 feet of steel reinforced concrete what Trump did that was the actual crime that allowed the conviction.

I would like to thank all of you that keep trying to break through this mess but I don't see an answer coming.

originally posted by: JinMI

We can only hope he's learned from his mistakes a

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.

You think you are asking a simple question that should have a simple answer, but this case actually has at least 3 moving parts.

The first part was falsifying business records in the second degree. This is NY State Penal Law 175.05(1)

"You are guilty of this subsection if, with the intent to defraud, you make, or even cause through other means, a false entry in an enterprise's business records."

When Trump signed the checks that repaid Cohen (all 34 of them), he entered them in the ledger of the Trump organization as legal fees. That wasn't entirely true and he knew it; that's where the intent to defraud comes in. $130,000 worth of those checks were repayment to Stormy for signing the NDA which, by itself, is perfectly legal. However, that $130,000 was not a legal fee; it's a campaign expense, since it was paid for the purpose of improving Trump's electability in the 2016 election and not for any legal service that Cohen provided while acting in his capacity as a lawyer. Disguising a campaign expense as a legal fee on an official document is where the fraud came in.

The second part is why Trump made the fraudulent entries. This brings us to New York Penal Law Section 17-152 - "Conspiracy to promote or prevent election."

"Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

It would seem that Trump, Cohen, and perhaps Pecker conspired to promote Trump's election by the unlawful means of creating fraudulent business records.

This brings us to the third part: New York Penal Law 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

"A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony."

In summary: Trump intentionally falsified business records in the second degree--a misdemeanor. He used this unlawful means for the purpose of promoting his election--a violation of law 17-152--another misdemeanor. Falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime (violation of law 17-152) raises falsifying business records to the first degree--a felony.

a reply to: network dude

If you know and can explain it, then do that. Prove that you aren't a clueless DERP.

Thing is if I understand why Trump was indicted and convicted but you don't who is the clueless DERP.

a reply to: Boomer1947

The payment to Stormy is a pass through expense. Cohen handled the NDA and payment to Stormy. That is a legal expense. Legal services are a business and they are reimbursed for the expenses incurred.

Trump tells his attorney to handle the situation with Stormy. Cohen creates the NDA and pays Stormy. He then goes back to Trump who then pays Cohen for his time and expenses. It would be properly coded in business records as a LEGAL EXPENSE.

I've never seen a single accounting, financial statement, turbo tax, etc that has a category called "Hush Money".

a reply to: UKTruth

I think we agree on the core issues of Trump based on past results.

Only difference is that you are assuming that he's learned nothing and I am hoping that he has.

And you're right. When he announced his VP and perhaps an idea of who his cabinet is composed of, we will have a better idea who is closer to the truth, no pun intended, of the matter.

a reply to: Edumakated

Theres also the matter of Cohens salary.

When Cohen claims he was reimbursed from Trump, then you also have to settle with the fact that there was no deviance in his salary over the course of a few years.