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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.