Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

a reply to: JinMI

some how posted in wrong thread....won't let me edit

a reply to: tarantulabite1

I agree with JinMI, please do point out where the actual crime has been listed, succinctly.

You raise this as your proof, but by only posting a link you all but confirm you don't personally understand it, so you just regurgitate some other piece of garbage and expect everyone else to read it for you, and understand it for you.

So, please do enlighten me...where is the crime listed in the document? Please point to it directly. Tell me what sentence is is listed in...and don't give me some sentence with (19) 'whereas' clauses in it. Just point it out...for all us 'dummies'.

'Splain it to me like I'm a 5th grader!

originally posted by: tarantulabite1
a reply to: network dude

Read the jury’s verdict sheet in Trump’s hush money trial - LINK - Verdict sheet

Yup just like convicting somebody of killing the same person 34 times. 🤣🤣

a reply to: xuenchen

lol

It's like stabbing someone 34 times and being convicted of murder for each stab.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: tarantulabite1

I agree with JinMI, please do point out where the actual crime has been listed, succinctly.

You raise this as your proof, but by only posting a link you all but confirm you don't personally understand it, so you just regurgitate some other piece of garbage and expect everyone else to read it for you, and understand it for you.

So, please do enlighten me...where is the crime listed in the document? Please point to it directly. Tell me what sentence is is listed in...and don't give me some sentence with (19) 'whereas' clauses in it. Just point it out...for all us 'dummies'.

'Splain it to me like I'm a 5th grader!

I posted ..........some how posted in wrong thread....won't let me edit or remove it

It now let me edit to remove so ya

In a twist, Trump is found guilty of paying his bills...

originally posted by: gortex
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.

I admit to not knowing. You claim to know. You can't explain it. So....DERP?

a reply to: xuenchen

Good Point lol

a reply to: JinMI

Not my reasoning: juries. Just reminding you. I don't care.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: JinMI

Not my reasoning: juries. Just reminding you. I don't care.

Your actions do not match your words.

the Manhattan Court is gonna have a LOT-of-explaining-TO-DO... about NDA future use by anyone/everyone...

Court & Judge took away the Supreme Court duties of determining if the hush-money & NDA non-disclosure was evil undertaking meant to swing the 'election' in favor of Trump

the Judge and court made 'new LAW'...and Found DJT defence standing there stupidly

originally posted by: matafuchs
In a twist, Trump is found guilty of paying his bills...

Not only that...found guilty of paying his attorney, and calling it...wait for it...'legal expenses'! (GASP!!!)

...when it's absolutely obvious and crystal clear to everyone on the planet that he should have instead classified them as...

"ATTENTION! ATTENTION!! LOOK HERE!! FELONIOUS AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN FINANCE EXPENSES PAID TO SOME HOOKER WITH MY OWN MONEY, AND I SHOULD BE ENDLESSLY HARASSED, WRONGLY TRIED AND WRONGLY CONVICTED OF IN A COMPLETELY BIASED COURT OF LAW, WITH A CORRUPT JUDGE AND A MISINFORMED, BIASED, JURY.---ATTENTION!! ATTENTION!!

...and failure and/or anything short of this disclosure is considered to be a federal felony punishable by incarceration in a federal penitentiary for a period of not less than the natural life of the Defendant without the possibility of parole and waiving all right to appeal.

Newsflash - We have just been informed that QuickBooks as added this expense category to all their accounting software going forward

Trump's mistake was just running for office without being an 'approved' politician. The old guard of both parties are supposed to approve anyone who runs, don't you know?

Trump had the cojones and they had to be cut off so WE would stay in line.

Trump's a witch. Mustn't be witches. We have a huge, huge vague legal code to burn witches with.

FYI: Being convicted by the Hitler admiring New York trio of Hochul-Bragg-Merchan, is a 3-Star Honor!

MAGA will Destroy Them...Guaranteed. 😎

a reply to: StudioNada

The judge, and to a lesser extent the defense, allowed the prosecution to present their closing arguments 'after' the defense, but BEFORE any charges were even announced. The defense didn't even have the benefit of knowing what their client had been charged with when they had to present their closing arguments. It would be impossible for a defense to present a proper and reasoned closing argument in the absences of any charges! Shame on Trump's defense for allowing this to happen, but the judge permitted it to happen as well.

The judge can't make an objection for the defense, but the process is established by the judge and the court, not what is on trial.

AND...to make matters even more laughable and corrupt, the judge then told the jury that the prosecution really didn't even need to spell out charges directly or prove a crime, but rather that the jury could render a guilty verdict, in essence...IF IT JUST SOUNDS SCARY OR BAD (forget whether an actual crime has been proven or not)!!

No one could prevail under such corrupt and biased circumstances...not one single person on this planet, Trump be damned. In that circus environment, absolutely anyone in this entire country could be convicted of whatever crazy alleged 'scary story' someone could dream up, regardless of merit.

Think about this, people! And I'm looking at YOU too, democrats...think very, very, carefully about this! The precedent you have allowed to be set in this case will affect not only republicans and the right; it will affect...everyone...including YOU!

edit - And just FYI, in the State of NY, depending on jurisdiction, it is common to see lower courts have the Defense issue their closing statements before the Prosecution. This, in and of itself, is not unheard of. HOWEVER, in ALL cases where this process is used, the Prosecution must have established and cited a specific crime which the accused was being charged with...without exception. This did not happen in the Trump case.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I'm fairly sympathetic to the jury

There was nothing short of abstaining that could be reached from the judges instructions.

And FYI, from what I understand it's common practice in NY for the prosecution to go first and close last.

Seems unethical and counterproductive to presumption of innocence but hey....it's New York.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude

Trumps crime.


Cohen paid Stormy for signing an NDA, 130K. Trump paid back Cohen the 130K in 12 installments.

Then Trump who just paid his lawyer, ledgered it in accounting as legal fees. 12 Times.

Cohen had invoiced Trump to pay him legal fees 10 times.

12 plus 12 plus 10

34

Hope that cleared it up for everyone.

Beautifully concise, except for the part where nothing illegal happened.

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.

So, explain the slush fund congress has for "hush money". That is paid for with taxpayers money.

And covered up. Not told to us taxpayers.

Can anyone explain the crime Trump did?

He denied Hillary Clinton from being the first woman president of the United States of America.

And he was not a member of the Republican establishment.

And he has a hard time keeping his mouth shut.

The two partys political machines roled right over him. It's amazing that he's still standing, let alone the current front runner for president in this election cycle.

a reply to: JinMI

And FYI, from what I understand it's common practice in NY for the prosecution to go first and close last.

Yes, you are correct, and I addressed this in my edit (sorry). However, this is based on the notion that the Prosecution has clearly stated the charges against the defendant. Failure to do this, as with the Trump case, should reverse the order of closing arguments.