Trump found Guilty on all charges!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Convicted felon routine isn't working. It's a badge of honor for him. I hope the DNC has some strategists that will pivot quickly.

Biden is down 2 in PA per Marist, one of the most dem-leaning pollsters out there.

If orange man wins GA and PA, we can start packing bags for France.

Edit- France just elected right wingers...we go to Canada!

If Trump and his voters think being a convicted felon is something to be proud of then the Republican Party has clearly lost its way.

They’re proud of it when it’s Trump but insulting when it’s Biden son.

They’re not proud. They’re spinning. Trump is humiliated and angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:House holds Merrick Garland in contempt.

See now that’s a political prosecution. And a good lesson for people who would serve the interests of the GOP rather than those of the US as Garland did. They’ll still rip your face off.

You mean the interests of the DNC rather than the U.S.

Matt Colangelo (number three at the DOJ) leaving the DOJ and joining the Alvin Bragg Team in New York (a guy who campaigned on "getting Trump") ain't random. You'd have to be a dummocrat to think it was not a political prosecution.

Can you name one crime that, should Trump be charged with it, you would *not* call a political prosecution?

Here's the thing: Trump would have been found guilty in his second impeachment, except Senate Republicans decided that, since he wasn't president anymore, he should be tried in criminal court instead. It's been common knowledge since then that charges were coming. Trump is running for president again because that lets him whine that any prosecution is political (and if he wins he can get the federal charges dropped).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:House holds Merrick Garland in contempt.

See now that’s a political prosecution. And a good lesson for people who would serve the interests of the GOP rather than those of the US as Garland did. They’ll still rip your face off.

You mean the interests of the DNC rather than the U.S.

Matt Colangelo (number three at the DOJ) leaving the DOJ and joining the Alvin Bragg Team in New York (a guy who campaigned on "getting Trump") ain't random. You'd have to be a dummocrat to think it was not a political prosecution.

NO you are the moron just like all the other Republicans

He committed CRIMES IN THE STATE OF NY
He broke the CRIMINAL CODE IN THE STATE OF NY

Not POLITICAL a jury of his peers found him guilty.

Leave the US if you don't like our judicial system moron.

[Anonymous]

Pg 150. Has anyone named the "federal crime" that was broken?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pg 150. Has anyone named the "federal crime" that was broken?

You will get responses like "read the verdict" or "we have told you but you didn't want to hear it" but the truth is.......
Nobody knows the "underlying crime" because it was not indicated in the verdict and the jury didn't have to specify on the jury sheet.
So, no, we don't know. Blatantly unConstitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's so called "relationship" with MIT is his uncle who was a full professor there until 1973 and a senior lecturer/professor emeritus until he died in 1985. So Trump's uncle was a professor at MIT 50 years ago and that somehow conveys a "relationship" between Trump and MIT?

Regardless, the boat and shark story is a bizarre choice for a campaign speech, and no Trump supporter can possibly spin this to something positive.

He even got the shark story wrong. The Ft Walton Beach victim last week is from Ashland, VA. She lost her left hand. She will recover. Trump said she lost a leg. Details matter in a world leader. [/quote

The hand will grow back?

Oh wow. Whoosh. The victim is a 45 year old so the “young woman” part is wrong too. I feel badly for her but most are happy she will recover from a terrible injury. Reading comprehension is important, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's so called "relationship" with MIT is his uncle who was a full professor there until 1973 and a senior lecturer/professor emeritus until he died in 1985. So Trump's uncle was a professor at MIT 50 years ago and that somehow conveys a "relationship" between Trump and MIT?

Regardless, the boat and shark story is a bizarre choice for a campaign speech, and no Trump supporter can possibly spin this to something positive.

The point of the story is that Trump promises to ban batteries from boats and trucks so they won’t sink and electrocute you in the shark-infested waters of Nevada. Only a genius with a connection to MIT could have asked that question and figured out the solution.

Has anyone broken the news to Trump that most trucks and boats already have batteries as part of the starting systems? I guess he’s no MIT engineer. I agree with the poster who says the more Trump talks the better it is for Biden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's so called "relationship" with MIT is his uncle who was a full professor there until 1973 and a senior lecturer/professor emeritus until he died in 1985. So Trump's uncle was a professor at MIT 50 years ago and that somehow conveys a "relationship" between Trump and MIT?

Regardless, the boat and shark story is a bizarre choice for a campaign speech, and no Trump supporter can possibly spin this to something positive.

The point of the story is that Trump promises to ban batteries from boats and trucks so they won’t sink and electrocute you in the shark-infested waters of Nevada. Only a genius with a connection to MIT could have asked that question and figured out the solution.

Has anyone broken the news to Trump that most trucks and boats already have batteries as part of the starting systems? I guess he’s no MIT engineer. I agree with the poster who says the more Trump talks the better it is for Biden.

+1 I wonder what my Trumpy friend who runs an electric boat rental company in Annapolis thinks of all this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pg 150. Has anyone named the "federal crime" that was broken?

You will get responses like "read the verdict" or "we have told you but you didn't want to hear it" but the truth is.......
Nobody knows the "underlying crime" because it was not indicated in the verdict and the jury didn't have to specify on the jury sheet.
So, no, we don't know. Blatantly unConstitutional.

Actually if you read the case which you have not it was spelled out 1000% documented he broke NY criminal code 34 times felonies.

This is not hard for a reader above 2nd grade.

Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree, which is a felony in New York.

And yes it was spelled out. Yes it was communicated to a jury. Yes he is a citizen of the US just like you subject to criminal codes in the states he breaks them which in this case was NY.

You are a moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pg 150. Has anyone named the "federal crime" that was broken?

You will get responses like "read the verdict" or "we have told you but you didn't want to hear it" but the truth is.......
Nobody knows the "underlying crime" because it was not indicated in the verdict and the jury didn't have to specify on the jury sheet.
So, no, we don't know. Blatantly unConstitutional.

Actually if you read the case which you have not it was spelled out 1000% documented he broke NY criminal code 34 times felonies.

This is not hard for a reader above 2nd grade.

Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree, which is a felony in New York.

And yes it was spelled out. Yes it was communicated to a jury. Yes he is a citizen of the US just like you subject to criminal codes in the states he breaks them which in this case was NY.

You are a moron.

Actually, it may be you who is the moron here. What the PP was trying to discuss is not the 34 counts that Trump was convicted, but whether or not there needs to be unanimity with respect to the predicate acts that elevated those 34 violations from misdemeanor to felony status. There is a very strong argument that based upon cases decided under the federal RICO statute and analogous state statutes that the jury should have been instructed that they had to be unanimous as to the predicate act(s). Apparently, this issue has not been addressed in New York with respect to this statute.

Here is a reasonable discussion of the issue. https://www.justsecurity.org/96654/trump-unanimous-verdict/

I guess we shall see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pg 150. Has anyone named the "federal crime" that was broken?

You will get responses like "read the verdict" or "we have told you but you didn't want to hear it" but the truth is.......
Nobody knows the "underlying crime" because it was not indicated in the verdict and the jury didn't have to specify on the jury sheet.
So, no, we don't know. Blatantly unConstitutional.

Actually if you read the case which you have not it was spelled out 1000% documented he broke NY criminal code 34 times felonies.

This is not hard for a reader above 2nd grade.

Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree, which is a felony in New York.

And yes it was spelled out. Yes it was communicated to a jury. Yes he is a citizen of the US just like you subject to criminal codes in the states he breaks them which in this case was NY.

You are a moron.

Actually, it may be you who is the moron here. What the PP was trying to discuss is not the 34 counts that Trump was convicted, but whether or not there needs to be unanimity with respect to the predicate acts that elevated those 34 violations from misdemeanor to felony status. There is a very strong argument that based upon cases decided under the federal RICO statute and analogous state statutes that the jury should have been instructed that they had to be unanimous as to the predicate act(s). Apparently, this issue has not been addressed in New York with respect to this statute.

Here is a reasonable discussion of the issue. https://www.justsecurity.org/96654/trump-unanimous-verdict/

I guess we shall see.

Except…there was unanimity.

The jurors all agreed, unanimously, on all of the predicate acts.

Do you honestly believe that Merchan would not have been excruciatingly careful in every single aspect of this trial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pg 150. Has anyone named the "federal crime" that was broken?

You will get responses like "read the verdict" or "we have told you but you didn't want to hear it" but the truth is.......
Nobody knows the "underlying crime" because it was not indicated in the verdict and the jury didn't have to specify on the jury sheet.
So, no, we don't know. Blatantly unConstitutional.

Actually if you read the case which you have not it was spelled out 1000% documented he broke NY criminal code 34 times felonies.

This is not hard for a reader above 2nd grade.

Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree, which is a felony in New York.

And yes it was spelled out. Yes it was communicated to a jury. Yes he is a citizen of the US just like you subject to criminal codes in the states he breaks them which in this case was NY.

You are a moron.

Actually, it may be you who is the moron here. What the PP was trying to discuss is not the 34 counts that Trump was convicted, but whether or not there needs to be unanimity with respect to the predicate acts that elevated those 34 violations from misdemeanor to felony status. There is a very strong argument that based upon cases decided under the federal RICO statute and analogous state statutes that the jury should have been instructed that they had to be unanimous as to the predicate act(s). Apparently, this issue has not been addressed in New York with respect to this statute.

Here is a reasonable discussion of the issue. https://www.justsecurity.org/96654/trump-unanimous-verdict/

I guess we shall see.

Except…there was unanimity.

The jurors all agreed, unanimously, on all of the predicate acts.

Do you honestly believe that Merchan would not have been excruciatingly careful in every single aspect of this trial?

There wasn't unanimity in the jury as to the predictae acts. That has been the controversy since before deliberations began. Merchan's instructions did not require that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pg 150. Has anyone named the "federal crime" that was broken?

You will get responses like "read the verdict" or "we have told you but you didn't want to hear it" but the truth is.......
Nobody knows the "underlying crime" because it was not indicated in the verdict and the jury didn't have to specify on the jury sheet.
So, no, we don't know. Blatantly unConstitutional.

Actually if you read the case which you have not it was spelled out 1000% documented he broke NY criminal code 34 times felonies.

This is not hard for a reader above 2nd grade.

Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree, which is a felony in New York.

And yes it was spelled out. Yes it was communicated to a jury. Yes he is a citizen of the US just like you subject to criminal codes in the states he breaks them which in this case was NY.

You are a moron.

Actually, it may be you who is the moron here. What the PP was trying to discuss is not the 34 counts that Trump was convicted, but whether or not there needs to be unanimity with respect to the predicate acts that elevated those 34 violations from misdemeanor to felony status. There is a very strong argument that based upon cases decided under the federal RICO statute and analogous state statutes that the jury should have been instructed that they had to be unanimous as to the predicate act(s). Apparently, this issue has not been addressed in New York with respect to this statute.

Here is a reasonable discussion of the issue. https://www.justsecurity.org/96654/trump-unanimous-verdict/

I guess we shall see.

Except…there was unanimity.

The jurors all agreed, unanimously, on all of the predicate acts.

Do you honestly believe that Merchan would not have been excruciatingly careful in every single aspect of this trial?

Of course he wasn't careful. Neither the people who setup the entire case. He was there to get a verdict in the news NOW and disregard it being overturned in the future. Election interference 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pg 150. Has anyone named the "federal crime" that was broken?

You will get responses like "read the verdict" or "we have told you but you didn't want to hear it" but the truth is.......
Nobody knows the "underlying crime" because it was not indicated in the verdict and the jury didn't have to specify on the jury sheet.
So, no, we don't know. Blatantly unConstitutional.

Actually if you read the case which you have not it was spelled out 1000% documented he broke NY criminal code 34 times felonies.

This is not hard for a reader above 2nd grade.

Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree, which is a felony in New York.

And yes it was spelled out. Yes it was communicated to a jury. Yes he is a citizen of the US just like you subject to criminal codes in the states he breaks them which in this case was NY.

You are a moron.

Actually, it may be you who is the moron here. What the PP was trying to discuss is not the 34 counts that Trump was convicted, but whether or not there needs to be unanimity with respect to the predicate acts that elevated those 34 violations from misdemeanor to felony status. There is a very strong argument that based upon cases decided under the federal RICO statute and analogous state statutes that the jury should have been instructed that they had to be unanimous as to the predicate act(s). Apparently, this issue has not been addressed in New York with respect to this statute.

Here is a reasonable discussion of the issue. https://www.justsecurity.org/96654/trump-unanimous-verdict/

I guess we shall see.

Except…there was unanimity.

The jurors all agreed, unanimously, on all of the predicate acts.

Do you honestly believe that Merchan would not have been excruciatingly careful in every single aspect of this trial?

Hre is the instruction:

"Merchan’s jury instructions state:

Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following unlawful means: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.""

There is no way to know whether the jury was unanimous wiht respect to any of those three items. 2 might have found one of them, 4 others another, 6 the third.

That's the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading these comments. Politicians have been having affairs since the beginning of time. So don’t act like that’s a real reason to not vote for someone. See famously FDR, LBJ, Kennedy, Clinton, Trump. These trumped up book keeping charges are alarming and are true election interference.

Good try but fail! It’s not just the sex with a porn star (only semi-consensual if that) while your wife is recovering from delivering your child. It’s the active lyimg to keep it out of the news, the falsifying of records so that it doesn’t show up as a business expense all to affect the outcome of an election. Trump’s own DOJ went after his fixer on these same charges. Are you saying Cohen should not have been charged? Why did Trump’s DOJ go after him then?

Are you brain dead? Lying to keep something out if the news is the playbook of every living politician and celebrity past and present. The state of limitations had run out and you are telling me “falsifying records” is a felony? Only since this case, prior to Trump it was a misdemeanor. This is disgustingly election interference at the judicial level. Disgraceful.

True, but not every politician who tried to cover it up falsified business documents to make it look like it wasn't a pay off.

Trump's business dealings have always been murky. Every NYer knew that even though he got away with it in the past. But when you are POTUS, your every move is looked at with a fine tooth comb. He shouldn't have ever ran for POTUS. Way too much skeletons in his business closet.

This kind of personal payment cannot be classified as a campaign expense under FEC rules as I understand it. But it seems that is what the prosecution said it should have been classified as. It was accompanied by an NDA, which is a legal agreement, so classifying it as a legal expense doesn't seem so off base to me. What should it have been classified as?

I work for a federal agency that not uncommonly gets rid of inconvenient employees through threats of trumped up misconduct charges or PIPs that an employee can get out of by signing a separation agreement in which they get several months salary in exchange for an NDA. Wondering now under what expense item they are classifying the separation sums.

The NDA was null and void, as I understand it. Trump never signed it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/07/591431710/stormy-daniels-files-suit-claims-nda-invalid-because-trump-didnt-sign-at-the-xxx

The suit alleges Trump "purposely did not sign the agreement so he could later, if need be, publicly disavow any knowledge of the 'Hush Agreement' " or the affair.

Falsifying records itself is not a felony, but the issue was he did it to impact an election. Those two together is what the charges were about.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/a-guide-to-the-criminal-cases-against-donald-trump/

In New York, falsifying business records counts as a felony, rather than a misdemeanor, only if the defendant had an intent of committing or concealing a separate underlying crime

So, if he had signed the NDA it could be classified as a legal expense? Also, wasn't the actual payment made in 2017 after the election? If, how was there intent to impact the election?

he wire transfer to Daniels lawyer was in October of 2016.

Yes it was during the last weeks of the 2016 campaign.

His lawyers stated in the trial that he never had sex with her, and that the money to Cohen was for legal fees. The jury decided that this was a lie, that he did have sex with her, and that the money was to hush her up because it would impact his campaign; and then he proceeded to falsify Trump Org business documents to conceal what the payments were for.

Under NY state law, falsifying documents to cover up an underlying crime us considered a low level felony. It's basically like a RICO case where gangs and mobs falsify business documents to conceal their ill gotten gains.

+1