I am still unclear what Trumps crime is - Donald Trump Discussion

[–] Filmtenk2 (4138) 9 months ago

Legal Eagle published this explainer today, hope it helps:

https://youtu.be/KnapsSRptqg?si=DlDEVWOAKrzZPp8M

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

Thanks , but , Well I'm 8 minutes in , and the deluge of extra detail is not helping so far .

Nothing about "campaign funds"
nothing about "claimed as n expnse"
which are some of the GUESSES I've had suggested so far about what the crime was here.

At the end of the day Cohen paid Stormy
Trump paid copen back and labelled it lawyer expenses.
there is no real crime.

reply

[–] tvfan (14561) 9 months ago

there is no real crime.

Precisely.

reply

[–] db20db (17756) 9 months ago

Yeah, that woman's rapid fire rhetoric actually seemed to exacerbate the confusion for me over time.

reply

[–] Filmtenk2 (4138) 9 months ago

At 10:20 it explains the charges.

reply

[–] KiwiJim (1814) 9 months ago

It’s not difficult to comprehend.

Look at it this way, say it’s 2016 and Hilary Clinton was found to have paid off people she had extramarital affairs with to keep it out of the press, then she won the election.

Would you feel Hilary had acted unlawfully to influence the election result? Well, it’s the same thing, just with someone you support.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

That s good analogy
No I would not consider that " unlawfully to influence the election result" any more than when Trump did it.

What would happen if he hadnt paid Stormy , she kept quiet of her own free will , and later we find out somehow?
Would everyone be like " Oh , you didnt voluntarily declare your porn star bang session so you cheated at the election"

reply

[–] jriley555 (8557) 9 months ago

You seriously don't yet know the crime ? You don't have google ? No one has explained it to you ?

Here goes :

Trump was not convicted of a hush money pymt. The hush money was, in effect & intent, a campaign expense to avoid highly unflattering news about his tryst w/ Daniels in the month before election. That motive was established at trial. The crime was not reporting the campaign expense, along w/ a conspiracy in support to cover it up w/ fraudulent documents & instruments of pymt.

The pretense that a crime had not been committed is belied by the elaborate scheme to evade detection. Trump wasn't moanihg about Cohen being sentenced to 3 years for basically the same crime - was he ?

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

not bad.
So were these repayments to Cohen not reported as a campaign expense?

reply

[–] jriley555 (8557) 9 months ago

right. which is the capstone crime. it was one heck of a campaign expense, as it might have saved his election. the payments to cohen were the fraudulent documents. trump could have just paid daniels up front and declared it as a campaign expense, maybe taken some heat - or not, and he would have been in the clear.

all of his present legal difficulties arise from his inveterate compulsion to lie, cheat & steal.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

People say that , but theres little point in paying Stormy to keep a secret and then writing said secret in your accounts.
How do people normally do this?

Could he have just written "Campaign expense: NDA to unnamed person" ?
.. or is that as vague as "Lawyer payments" ?

Hang on a sec,
If Trump changes his diper in the morning in order to appear less obnoxious and smelly at a rally -therefore more electable , and then doesent put that on his campaign expense paperwork is that a felony too?

reply

[–] jriley555 (8557) 9 months ago

I'm no expert, but I assume he could have just cut a check to Stormy, or a cut-out company, with a notation of 'consulting services' and claimed it as a campaign expense. But don't quote me. The thing is, its not your or my problem to account for Trump's problem with documenting what was, in fact, a campaign expense.

If you are trying to trivialize this, I simply have to say this was a hugely impactful campaign expense, in fact - which achieved its intended effect - keeping his undies clean prior to the election.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

Basically what I'm saying is that if the MAGAS are right that this is kangaroo court trumped up charges and persecution then that is FAR MORE election interference that some microscopic bookkeeping error.
and what does that say about the system as a whole?

Why not charge him with the real crimes ? like his insurrection , now THATS a serious business.

reply

[–] jriley555 (8557) 9 months ago

there are 60 more federal indictments outstanding, along w/ the GA case. Its not an either-or situation. This case just happened to get through the maze first. The gal in FL will keep the documents case in limbo as long as she can, the Atlanta DA shit the bed, the Supremes are slow-walking Trump's ridiculous claim of absolute immunity. These things take time.

reply

[–] Martoto (5198) 9 months ago

What's MAGA's track record on being right?

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

Pretty abysmal , but I ( a non maga lefty who hates Trump ) feel I'm forced to agree with them on this as I cant see the issue.

I'm i'm not going to just blindly argue for whichever side I'm on regardless of the facts / story / scenario

reply

[–] db20db (17756) 9 months ago

Trump kept stalling with the NDA, didn't really want to pay it. It was Cohen who was in a panic about it, kept pushing it. When Trump finally conceded to Cohen, he wanted to pay cash, as you suggested, but Cohen kept insisting "No!" It was Cohen who was convicted of election fraud and lying to Congress in 2018. Trump's defense was that he interpreted the reimbursement payments as legal expenses and they were entered into his company's accounting records as "For services rendered."

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

he interpreted the reimbursement payments as legal expenses and they were entered into his company's accounting records as "For services rendered."

and the question for me is - what the hell difference does that make to anybody?

reply

[–] db20db (17756) 9 months ago

Desperation to get Trump out of the campaign. The Dems have no qualms about playing dirty politics when it comes to staying in power.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1397) 9 months ago

From what I researched, that’s pretty much all it was. He paid some bimbo to shut up so he could campaign. If there’s a “misdemeanor” in there, that’s the worst it could be.

The circus turned it into a felony then split it into 34 pieces. The Trump haters are acting smug, but that’s literally all they have on him, and nobody else is falling for it. They’re the embodiment of the crying soyjack with the smiling mask meme.

reply

[–] luvthepros (912) 9 months ago

LanceDance (1091) 2 days ago SAID>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"From what I researched, that’s pretty much all it was. He paid some bimbo to shut up so he could campaign. If there’s a “misdemeanor” in there, that’s the worst it could be.
The circus turned it into a felony then split it into 34 pieces. The Trump haters are acting smug, but that’s literally all they have on him, and nobody else is falling for it. They’re the embodiment of the crying soyjack with the smiling mask meme."
=============================================
Your research did not turn up the actual reason for the indictments. The hush money payment was not the charge. It is not illegal to pay someone off to remain quiet. What Trump did that WAS illegal was falsifying business records. In the State of NY, that is a crime.

Furthermore.......Falsifying business records is typically a misdemeanor, but it becomes a felony under New York Law if it was done to commit or conceal another crime. In Trump's case, prosecutors said he falsified records to interfere in the 2016 presidential election by "unlawful means."

Why do Trump supporters like yourself not see this? Trump doesn't even understand this. You are all foolish to think Trump has a shot at the White House again.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1397) 9 months ago

And how exactly was he interfering with the 2016 election?

reply

[–] luvthepros (912) 9 months ago

LanceDance (1094) 11 hours ago SAID>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"And how exactly was he interfering with the 2016 election?"
==================================================
Let me explain this in the most simple way (for the umteenth time on this forum) so you Trump supporters can grasp it....................................

Trump had a tryst with an adult film star named Stormy Daniels.

Trump was campaigning for POS before the 2016 election.

Trump did not want that tryst to be made public before the 2016 election because, in his own words, "it would be a disaster" for his campaign. He would never win with if that tryst was made public. Trump was a married man after all. Women would not vote for him. Can't have that happen!!!!

If Trump's tryst with an adult film star was made public before the 2016 election, coupled with that video of him saying to Billy Bush that because he is a celebrity he can grab women by the pussy. Trump was fearful he would lose the election.

Trump and his cronies conjured up a plan to cover up that tryst with the adult film star.

Do you understand now how that was election interference. That was one of the reasons the crimes Trump committed were elevated to felonies.

I cannot make it any more clear for you.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1397) 9 months ago

If anything, it sounds like the adult film star and her benefactors were the ones interfering, not Trump. Dealing with a personal matter is neither interfering nor a felony. This whole thing reeks of desperation since the Russian collusion allegations didn't pan out.

I'll ask again: how was Trump interfering with the 2016 election? Where was the felony?

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

"here is no law saying all sordid pornstar booty calls must be declared."

There is a law that you cannot falsify business records to cover up crimes, such as tax evasion, election interference, campaign finance laws.

On the election interference - That is what you all have screamed that Joe Biden did in covering up his son's laptop. The difference is that Trump actually did this and there is no evidence that Biden did 0 there is evidence to the contrary that Biden didn't do this (see the testimony of tech company president before the Republican inquisition). You all wanted Joe thrown in jail for a cover up that influenced an election, now you complain that Trump was caught actually doing it. Get a life in the world of reality.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

I am not "you all" I ( the OP ) am I lefty who wants nothing more than to see Trump in Jail .
But not for this .
This is a non issue that is fueling Trumps argument that its all political "lawfare"
Its making his delusions of democrat persecution seem real.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

I don't want to see him on jail for this, either. I dont think these are anywhere close to most serious charges against him, they are just the ones that got adjudicated first - and probably the only ones that will be before the election, and possible ever! I'm just glad he was finally gotten for something - I was losing faith in the system. This has restored some of it.

I don't think he will ever be put on prison, either. Nor should be be. The most he will get is house arrest.

Some of what I'm hearing about sentencing for this case mentions that it's his first offense, and they will warrant leniency. That will not be the case going forward.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

Cant wait for the J6 trial, although it may be harder to get a conviction

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) 9 months ago

As for fueling Trumps argument about being targeted - that is no reason to go easy on him. That's negotiating with a terrorist. Besides, we know that he complained about election fraud in a year that he WON! We can be sure he will make the same complaints win or lose.

reply

[–] Callahan7 (1206) 9 months ago

He was convicted or 34 non-crimes. The kangaroo court's verdict will be tossed on appeal.

They are trying to call him a CONVICTED FELON and it is backfiring big time. When they shout CONVICTED FELON his poll numbers go up lol.

MAGA
TRUMP 2024

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

yup .
and Its ludicrous that the only reason there are 34 counts is that he paid Cohen the money he owed him in 34 installments.

They might as well just have said "You paid him a dollar 134,000 times so you can have 134,000 felony convictions"

reply

[–] luvthepros (912) 9 months ago

Callahan7 (952) an hour ago SAID.........

"He was convicted or 34 non-crimes. The kangaroo court's verdict will be tossed on appeal.

They are trying to call him a CONVICTED FELON and it is backfiring big time. When they shout CONVICTED FELON his poll numbers go up lol.

MAGA
TRUMP 2024"
=============================================
This just exemplifies how much Trump has programmed his cult followers to believe he is totally innocent of all charges. Trump's rhetoric is becoming real to you because Trump says it over and over and over and over that he did nothing wrong. You believe him. That is just sad.

reply

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6545) 9 months ago

Those were also a crime at the federal level because those were campaign expenses, but not declared as such.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

They really didnt make that clear , also 130k out of a billion ? its neglible

reply

[–] Martoto (5198) 9 months ago

But you are clear that the amount of money involved in a fraud has no bearing on defining if it is a crime or not.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

Yes , i understand the binary nature of " a crime or not"
BUT some crimes are so insignificant
(lets say going 1mph over the speed limit for example)

Leniency , discretion , cautions, and weighing up if its even worth persuing are options given to the police and the courts.
Persuing this in this situation amounts to a much more serious case of election interference by the establishment.

Theres a whole twisted chain of events and hoops to jump through to have made this a crime .
At the end of the Day donald paid stormy to stfu , thats all .
Many of the replies I've had say "if the money had taken this route it would be ok"

AND YET , the key bit of evidence seems to be "paying Stormy is an election expense" so it wouldnt matter what route.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

Its as ludicrous as if Donald stopped in Starbucks on the way to a rally and didnt declare that coffee as an election expense.

reply

[–] Martoto (5198) 9 months ago

A $130K starbucks?

If he claimed that he spent $130K on a coffee, that would be an alarmingly stupid fraudulent claim. Do you think a guy that lied about a coffee costing $130K is fit for running as president?

reply

[–] Martoto (5198) 9 months ago

So we're clear about what the crime is at least.

No offence, but it seems rather paradoxical that you are not sure that the crime is significant enough for Donald not to be above the law on it. But you seem nevertheless very sure that justice being pursued without fear or favour in this case IS a significant case of interference by "the establishment". It seems to me that a person who claims that they needed convincing of the very mundane and unobfuscated fact that a crime, for which there is tangible evidence. was committed 34 times and the defendant found guilty of it, but don't need convincing of a very significant idea that the fact that it is happening amounts to a more potentially serious, but intangible crime where no perpetrator is even identified.

Reminds me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AzAFqrxfeY

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

It was only committed 34 times because of 34 installments of a payment.
They may as well have said $130,000 = 130,000 felonies
another example of the overzelaousness of the persecution by the establishmant.

And to suggest that this simple bookkeeping misdemaenor is a felony because of the intent to cover up a serious crime - The crime of not declaring 130k out of a billion dollars of election funds is ridiculous.

The more you have to say "Yes but acktually , technically , it IS really a crime if the take the law to the extreme max penalty and throw away all judgement " the more it reinforces the Lawfare / persecution story.

As a lefty who wants to see Trump in prison I am shocked and embarrassed that this is the way they are going about it. People have responded to that with "oh but this one just happened to come up first"
So what ? this one should have been scrapped in light of the actual real charges coming up.
again - it just makes him a martyr and gives him ammo

reply

[–] Filmtenk2 (4138) 9 months ago

We will not get to the other 3 trials before November. If tfg gets reelected the DC and FL ones go away entirely. We might have gotten the Fani Willis trial in August if she hadn't committed the unforced error of screwing the lead prosecutor (and assuming she wouldn't get caught). A human mistake that should probably not matter but it did.

Should NY have happened? Idk. 1/4 trials and some accountability for TFG over possibly zero. Maybe it will cause enough ppl to doubt his fitness for office and take away votes. But if ppl weren't there already idk what to tell them.

Other hand, maybe it will add sympathetic "lawfare" voters. If tfg wins in November it probably will not have been worth pursuing.

reply

[–] Martoto (5198) 9 months ago

He fraudulently recorded each of the statements.

He didn't make 130k payments and fraudulently record them.

It's not book-keeping misdemeanour. It was a conspiracy to conceal and deceive.

I never said technically or yes but actually. Who said he's getting the extreme max penalty? Where are you getting this?

Anything that is detrimental to Trump's esteem is going to "reinforce" the persecution story for those that already want and prefer that narrative to be true. You're talking as if a neutral would look at prosecuting 34 payments recorded fraudulently for a purpose that was concealed during and election with election campaign funds would be immediately suspicious. That is simply a spurious claim.

Do you think that Trump would ever not claim to be a martyr? Do you know how Trump is? You are talking as if he's just another unremarkable Rep candidate? He was already the most indicted person to run for office in 2016. It's not like he's been a stranger to the law courts until he became a threat to the "establishment".

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 9 months ago

"Do you think that Trump would ever not claim to be a martyr?"
Of course he will , he always has played the victim ,the difference is - now he is correct!

"It was a conspiracy to conceal and deceive."
ok , so , new page , clear the desk , lets summarise , and not get bogged in the minutiae again -

What was he conspiring to conceal? (and deceive)
He is perfectly entitled to conceal his Stormy sex session

reply

[–] Martoto (5198) 9 months ago

You're sure he's a martyr but not clear if it's a crime if the fraudulent entries are only 130k. That's paradoxical and contradictory if not disingenuous.

He's not entitled to fraudulently conceal anything.

reply

[–] db20db (17756) 9 months ago

This is a good argument and analogy. I've spent a considerable amount of time driving for a living and I'm acutely aware that in most cases, cops allow for about 5mph over the speed limit, referring to that as, "a buffer".

Yeah, this so-called case is extremely petty and obviously concocted for political reasons.

reply

[–] Martoto (5198) 9 months ago

A speeding driver isn't conspiring to deceive anyone for any reason. Fraudulent business records are a conspiracy to conceal and deceive, regardless of the numbers involved.

There's isn't an acceptable amount of fraudulent business recording like there's an acceptable number of mph you can drive.

Making the comparison to cops not pulling over cars just over the limit is about as tin pot, petty and irrelevant as you can get.

Would you say there was a buffer for fraudulent votes? A buffer for fraudulent medical licences you have or issue? A buffer number for the amount of government secrets you knowingly share unlawfully?

reply

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6545) 9 months ago

Speedometers are not precise. That's the reason for the allowance. There is no discrepancy or disagreement about the amount here.

Plus, twelve fairly selected jurors, after carefully sifting through all the evidence and hearing arguments on both sides, agreed that yes, he committed 34 crimes.

reply

[–] Martoto (5198) 8 months ago

Then there's that video of the cop pulling over the guy who is speeding. Sees he's just got his license. Taking his girlfriend out for a ride. No prior tickets or anything. Decides it's not enough to write him up or anything. Tells him to take it easy and lets him go.

Five minutes later the same cop is pulling up to the wrecked car, then driver and his date dead inside.

I don't know what exactly that proves, but it makes the speeding ticket analogy being used in this case of a person creating fraudulent business records sound all the more ridiculous.

reply

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 8 months ago

yes indeed its difficult to see what that proves.

maybe its "All speeding tickets no matter how frivolous saved the driver from a fatal crash minutes later"
I had a speeding ticket once , and thank god I did in light of this, I wish I knew that cops name so I could track him down and thank him
😉

reply

[–] e3e34ifj (1912) 9 months ago

"I am still unclear what Trumps crime is"

How?

reply