Former US President Donald Trump Found GUILTY on 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records.

[I_M4_AU 8,978]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

I keep hearing this concern and to me, it doesn't make sense.  Even the POTUS should be held accountable if they break the law.  If you don't want to get charged with crimes, don't commit them.  That will eliminate 99.9% of the concerns.

When did paying hush money payments become illegal?  If you bring in campaign finance laws (they are very complicated); why was Trumps witness about the finance laws not allowed to testify during the trial?

[TitanTiger 21,341]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

When did paying hush money payments become illegal?  If you bring in campaign finance laws (they are very complicated); why was Trumps witness about the finance laws not allowed to testify during the trial?

In and of itself, it's not.  But when you make hush money payments then try to disguise them as "legal fees" spread out of several months, you run into criminal territory.  You are falsifying official business documents that are part of what's available to people who would invest.  It's obfuscation of the business's finances.  That's what make it a crime, normally a misdemeanor.

What made it a felony here is the intent behind it - to influence a presidential election.  Now, like I said the legal theory the DA used to tie these already illegal payments to the election so it became a felony is the part I think (in my non-lawyer opinion) is on shakier ground.  

But there's zero legal doubt that the payment scheme Cohen and Trump used here is illegal and criminal in nature.  Anyone who's telling you otherwise is ignorant or lying.

[cbo 8,832]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

When did paying hush money payments become illegal?  If you bring in campaign finance laws (they are very complicated); why was Trumps witness about the finance laws not allowed to testify during the trial?

You must know this is not just about making hush money payments. It is a pretty big news story so it's not hard to find an explanation of his crimes. 

To make it simple, you're not allowed to falsify business documents and it's more serious if you do so to influence an election. 

And ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. If Trump did not understand the laws, he probably should have hired ethical attorneys instead of fixers. 

 

[1716AU 797]

42 minutes ago, cbo said:

And ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. If Trump did not understand the laws, he probably should have hired ethical attorneys instead of fixers. 

He understood them.  And he understood what he was charged with.  When the Judge asked him, POINT BLANK, if he understood what he was charged with, her answered "Yes."

Anything else is just a bald face lie

[GoAU 1,696]

4 hours ago, AUDub said:

Falsifying financial records to cover up payments to Stormy Daniels at the heart of it. 

So is stringing together a couple of very low level misdemeanor charges, after the statute of limitations expires.  Including one of those being a federal charge attempting to be prosecuted in a state court, that federal agencies declined to prosecute.  Essentially a giant heaping pile of manure. 

3 hours ago, Didba said:

As a lawyer, this response is hilarious. 

Equally hilarious was the judges completely unheard of juror instructions.  As a lawyer, truthfully, have you ever heard of a judge saying that the jury didn’t even all have to agree on the precursor “crime” to convict on the secondary crime?   There are several areas that the judge has left his conduct ripe for appeal.  

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I keep hearing this concern and to me, it doesn't make sense.  Even the POTUS should be held accountable if they break the law.  If you don't want to get charged with crimes, don't commit them.  That will eliminate 99.9% of the concerns.

Sure - and how about the crimes by Hillary (illegal handling of classified documents and destroying evidence) or Hurr openly admitting the only reason he chose not to charge Biden in handling of classified documents was his age and failing cognitive abilities (but yet somehow he can still be president??)  - both of these are of SIGNIFICANT higher orders of magnitude than this kangaroo court had.  

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

What made it a felony here is the intent behind it - to influence a presidential election.  Now, like I said the legal theory the DA used to tie these already illegal payments to the election so it became a felony is the part I think (in my non-lawyer opinion) is on shakier ground.  

It is a very dangerous precedent that has just been set, and I’m afraid there is not putting the genie back in the bottle. Select states with favorable political leanings will declare open season on politicians like it’s nobody’s business soon.  Start the clock ticking on how long it is before some AG in a state like TX prosecutes Biden for something like being an accessory to a crime for his lack of enforcement of the border.  

2 hours ago, cbo said:

To make it simple, you're not allowed to falsify business documents and it's more serious if you do so to influence an election. 

Let’s be honest, the “influence and election” argument is a heck of a stretch.  I understand the literal term, but the context is a real stretch, that can (and will be) used frequently in the future to target candidates on both sides.  
 

I’m stunned at how many democrats don’t see concern about “lawfare” being used against political opponents.  For those who try to claim Trump was authoritarian - this is a classic example of an authoritarian president.  

[Didba 5,511]

2 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Equally hilarious was the judges completely unheard of juror instructions.  As a lawyer, truthfully, have you ever heard of a judge saying that the jury didn’t even all have to agree on the precursor “crime” to convict on the secondary crime?   There are several areas that the judge has left his conduct ripe for appeal. 

I’d have to look into this. I’m not an expert on criminal law and the law on jury instructions differs greatly on a state by state basis.

If the judge used state pattern jury instructions then it could be fine depending on the state’s case law on jury instructions. 

[Didba 5,511]

6 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I’m stunned at how many democrats don’t see concern about “lawfare” being used against political opponents.  
 

For those who try to claim Trump was authoritarian - this is a classic example of an authoritarian president.  No, it’s not.

I’m not sure why you are stunned. I, for one, am totally fine with democratic politicians being tried and convicted in the same manner as Trump. To quote, Norm McDonald quoting Bill Clinton “if she does the crime, she does the time.”

 

[Didba 5,511]

@GoAU scratch all that. Looks like NY does you model/pattern jury instructions:

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/index.shtml

 

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf

However, I cannot find an instruction for the on section on election law which really isn’t surprising. I would be more surprised if they did have a model instruction on that crime  

Trump trial jury instructions:

 

People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf

Edited May 31 by Didba

[cbo 8,832]

1 hour ago, Didba said:

I’m not sure why you are stunned. I, for one, am totally fine with democratic politicians being tried and convicted in the same manner as Trump. To quote, Norm McDonald quoting Bill Clinton “if she does the crime, she does the time.”

 

It's funny how some can't fathom this. It's not team sports to all of us. 

[Son of A Tiger 649]

Even CNN says prosecutors contorted the law.

CNN legal guru says New York Trump prosecutors ‘contorted the law,’ case was 'unjustified mess' | Fox News

[I_M4_AU 8,978]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

But when you make hush money payments then try to disguise them as "legal fees" spread out of several months, you run into criminal territory.

Is there a category in accounting that specifies *Hush Money*?

[I_M4_AU 8,978]

4 hours ago, cbo said:

You must know this is not just about making hush money payments. It is a pretty big news story so it's not hard to find an explanation of his crimes. 

To make it simple, you're not allowed to falsify business documents and it's more serious if you do so to influence an election. 

And ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. If Trump did not understand the laws, he probably should have hired ethical attorneys instead of fixers. 

 

What classification should he have used instead of legal fees paid to his lawyer?

 

[TitanTiger 21,341]

44 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is there a category in accounting that specifies *Hush Money*?

I don't know but it doesn't matter.  It was money that was for one purpose that was entered into the business accounting as "legal fees" which is a misrepresentation, which in an of itself is a misdemeanor criminal offense.

[auburnatl1 6,206]

56 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't know but it doesn't matter.  It was money that was for one purpose that was entered into the business accounting as "legal fees" which is a misrepresentation, which in an of itself is a misdemeanor criminal offense.

Probably was an innocent Quick Books/Turbo Tax entry mistake. That sex worker hush money section is pretty confusing for me every year.

[TexasTiger 14,364]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

What classification should he have used instead of legal fees paid to his lawyer?

 

You’re hopelessly MAGA in denial.

[Didba 5,511]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't know but it doesn't matter.  It was money that was for one purpose that was entered into the business accounting as "legal fees" which is a misrepresentation, which in an of itself is a misdemeanor criminal offense.

Specifically, falsifying business records. Otherwise known as fraud. 

[GoAU 1,696]

2 hours ago, cbo said:

It's funny how some can't fathom this. It's not team sports to all of us. 

Except for some odd reason the prosecutions just never seem to happen on the other side, huh?

Hillary's charges were more serious and there was more evidence, but not pursued 

Biden's charges were also more serious, yet he was found too mentally incompetent to be charged, but somehow still has enough mental facilities to be president

Hunter's charges were attempted to be covered up with a ridiculous plea deal, that was stopped at the last minute by a judge that wasn't on the Dem train.  We'll see how his trial goes

Haven't seen "gold bar Bob" get indicted yet, but not holding my breath

Funny, eh?  And I'm not even mentioning all the evidence of the Biden's pay to play schemes that just sits there - but in a way I'm glad he hasn't been indicted there yet, as it'll give something fresh for the new AG under Trumps next term to start with.....

[GoAU 1,696]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

Specifically, falsifying business records. Otherwise known as fraud. 

Without defending the action (not a fan of what happened there at all, but I also separate my moral values from laws), paying Cohen (who was his lawyer) could fall under "legal fees".

[Didba 5,511]

2 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Even CNN says prosecutors contorted the law.

CNN legal guru says New York Trump prosecutors ‘contorted the law,’ case was 'unjustified mess' | Fox News

No it didn’t. The article this Fox News story is referring to is from the New York magazine:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html

[Didba 5,511]

4 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Except for some odd reason the prosecutions just never seem to happen on the other side, huh?

Hillary's charges were more serious and there was more evidence, but not pursued 

Biden's charges were also more serious, yet he was found too mentally incompetent to be charged, but somehow still has enough mental facilities to be president

Hunter's charges were attempted to be covered up with a ridiculous plea deal, that was stopped at the last minute by a judge that wasn't on the Dem train.  We'll see how his trial goes

Haven't seen "gold bar Bob" get indicted yet, but not holding my breath

Funny, eh?  And I'm not even mentioning all the evidence of the Biden's pay to play schemes that just sits there - but in a way I'm glad he hasn't been indicted there yet, as it'll give something fresh for the new AG under Trumps next term to start with.....

Sounds good to me!

[cbo 8,832]

4 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Without defending the action (not a fan of what happened there at all, but I also separate my moral values from laws), paying Cohen (who was his lawyer) could fall under "legal fees".

Except it was direct reimbursement for paying off Daniels. 

[Didba 5,511]

10 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Without defending the action (not a fan of what happened there at all, but I also separate my moral values from laws), paying Cohen (who was his lawyer) could fall under "legal fees".

Sure if it was in exchange for legal services rendered, which was not the case. 

Edited May 31 by Didba

[cbo 8,832]

6 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Except for some odd reason the prosecutions just never seem to happen on the other side, huh?

Hillary's charges were more serious and there was more evidence, but not pursued 

Biden's charges were also more serious, yet he was found too mentally incompetent to be charged, but somehow still has enough mental facilities to be president

Hunter's charges were attempted to be covered up with a ridiculous plea deal, that was stopped at the last minute by a judge that wasn't on the Dem train.  We'll see how his trial goes

Haven't seen "gold bar Bob" get indicted yet, but not holding my breath

Funny, eh?  And I'm not even mentioning all the evidence of the Biden's pay to play schemes that just sits there - but in a way I'm glad he hasn't been indicted there yet, as it'll give something fresh for the new AG under Trumps next term to start with.....

Have at it with all of that. I have no problem with it. It's not up to me but I'd personally start with the Epstein case. With Bill right in front. If a jury determines he or anyone else committed sex crimes with minors, you can shoot them all straight to the moon for all I care. 

Honestly, I do get your point and your frustration. In the grand scheme of things, this crime is not significant. And I'm sure the pursuit was politically motivated. 

But Trump set himself up as a target by acting like a complete a**hole to everyone, including his mistresses and attorneys. And by not even pretending to care about any institution or authority. He constantly acts above it all, whether it's the electoral process or criminal court. That type of hubris usually precedes a fall and it's been a long time coming for Trump. 

[Didba 5,511]

1 hour ago, cbo said:

Have at it with all of that. I have no problem with it. It's not up to me but I'd personally start with the Epstein case. With Bill right in front. If a jury determines he or anyone else committed sex crimes with minors, you can shoot them all straight to the moon for all I care. 

Honestly, I do get your point and your frustration. In the grand scheme of things, this crime is not significant. And I'm sure the pursuit was politically motivated. 

But Trump set himself up as a target by acting like a complete a**hole to everyone, including his mistresses and attorneys. And by not even pretending to care about any institution or authority. He constantly acts above it all, whether it's the electoral process or criminal court. That type of hubris usually precedes a fall and it's been a long time coming for Trump. 

Also, he has REALLY dumb attorneys. 

[auburnatl1 6,206]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

Except for some odd reason the prosecutions just never seem to happen on the other side, huh?

Hillary's charges were more serious and there was more evidence, but not pursued 

Biden's charges were also more serious, yet he was found too mentally incompetent to be charged, but somehow still has enough mental facilities to be president

Hunter's charges were attempted to be covered up with a ridiculous plea deal, that was stopped at the last minute by a judge that wasn't on the Dem train.  We'll see how his trial goes

Haven't seen "gold bar Bob" get indicted yet, but not holding my breath

Funny, eh?  And I'm not even mentioning all the evidence of the Biden's pay to play schemes that just sits there - but in a way I'm glad he hasn't been indicted there yet, as it'll give something fresh for the new AG under Trumps next term to start with.....

I’ve learned that when someone goes down the “refs are out to get us”conspiracy path  - arguing is usually a waste of time. But a quick reminder that the fbi was labeled “Trump land” in 2016 and was accused of costing Hillary the election by announcing an investigation 2 weeks before and then calling it off just days before (after mail in votes). As for the total Dem vs GOP indictment body count - here’s the data. Facts suck.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/14/politics/doj-republicans-democrats-what-matters