GUILTY

[RocksInMyHead]

Trump's charges were falsification of business records, with the intent of covering up Cohen's crimes

Actually, this is incorrect. In fact, the jury instructions explicitly state that Cohen's conviction is not to be considered evidence of Trump's guilt:

Michael Cohen – You also heard testimony that the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) conducted an investigation into the payment to Stormy Daniels and of responses submitted by Michael Cohen and his attorney to the investigation. That evidence was permitted to assist you, the jury, in assessing Michael Cohen’s credibility and to help provide context for some of the surrounding events. You may consider that evidence for those purposes only. Likewise, you will recall that you heard testimony that Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to violating the Federal Election Campaign Act, otherwise known as FECA. I remind you that evidence was permitted to assist you, the jury, in assessing Mr. Cohen’s credibility as a witness and to help provide context for some of the events that followed. You may Page | 10 consider that testimony for those purposes only. Neither the fact of the FEC investigation, Mr. Cohen and his attorney’s responses or the fact that Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty, constitutes evidence of the Defendant’s guilt and you may not consider them in determining whether the Defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charged crimes.

The crime that was covered up by the falsification of records was conspiracy (in which Trump was a participant) to promote or prevent the election of a person by unlawful means. Those unlawful means, as theorized by the prosecution, were:

1. Violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) by means of unlawful campaign contributions. This would refer to the reimbursement from the Trump Organization to Cohen, which exceeded the $2700 maximum threshold that existed in 2016.

2. Falsification of (other) business records. This refers to records associated with dummy corporations set up by Cohen, the payment to Keith Davidson by Cohen, and the Trump Organization's issue of form 1099-MISC to Cohen.

3. Violation of tax laws. This refers to any falsification of tax records associated with the above activities.

 

[FaithT]

It'd almost be easier to count the times he hasn't violated the gag orders he's been under - It's wild to think about how much leeway he's been given for flagrantly refusing to cooperate. He's given so many second chances, but he'll constantly whine about how he's being treated unfairly.

Meanwhile, if I was some random joe charged with a crime right now, I'd feel like Convicted Felon Donald Trump just always got more wiggle room than me.

Oh, for sure.

 

[ralliann]

Excuse me. Was Stormy Daniels representing Trump in court or something? That is not a legal expense.


What Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to.

To come to legal agreement you do not need a lawyer? Come on. It is a nondisclosure document and agreement. A legal form of bribery.
Since it seems that INTENT in the mind is at play here, Micheal Cohens intent could vary from Trumps. Did he want this agreement because of the election, or his wife, family, business brand? Cohen knowing he would get immunity could have easily played along with this new found crime, of intent, without having anything to do with Trumps intent. Had Trump done non disclosures before? We know he did and we also know it was found that it was untrue what was not to be disclosed.

 

[ralliann]

Actually, this is incorrect. In fact, the jury instructions explicitly state that Cohen's conviction is not to be considered evidence of Trump's guilt:

The crime that was covered up by the falsification of records was conspiracy (in which Trump was a participant) to promote or prevent the election of a person by unlawful means. Those unlawful means, as theorized by the prosecution, were:

1. Violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) by means of unlawful campaign contributions. This would refer to the reimbursement from the Trump Organization to Cohen, which exceeded the $2700 maximum threshold that existed in 2016.

2. Falsification of (other) business records. This refers to records associated with dummy corporations set up by Cohen, the payment to Keith Davidson by Cohen, and the Trump Organization's issue of form 1099-MISC to Cohen.

3. Violation of tax laws. This refers to any falsification of tax records associated with the above activities.

Which the above were previously decided to not try him on. It was a dead misdemeanor/s, statute of limitation run out. It appears all these are piggy backing on INTENT being the unlawful act. His intent was Soley and only because of the election. Therefore should have been listed a campaign expense. If done simply to protect his brand, or family then it was legal expenses.
Never done before, nor should not be done.....

 

[essentialsaltes]

Since it seems that INTENT in the mind is at play here, Micheal Cohens intent could vary from Trumps.

Cohen, David Pecker and maybe others testified at trial as to Trump's state of mind with regard to these negotiations. Absolutely the prosecution had a burden to prove not only that Trump broke the law but the he did so with the intent of hiding another crime. The jury clearly felt that burden had been met.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

To come to legal agreement you do not need a lawyer? Come on. It is a nondisclosure document and agreement.

Sure, a lawyer drafts the agreement. But a payment to someone to stop them from talking about something is not a legal expense.

A legal form of bribery.

To be clear, there is a distinction between a "legal" expense (as in the expense is lawful, not illegal) and a "legal expense" (which refers to payment for lawyerly services and expenses incurred in the pursuit of those services). Your lawyer fronting the money to pay someone for an NDA might be a "legal" expense, but it is not a "legal expense".

Since it seems that INTENT in the mind is at play here, Micheal Cohens intent could vary from Trumps. Did he want this agreement because of the election, or his wife, family, business brand? Cohen knowing he would get immunity could have easily played along with this new found crime, of intent, without having anything to do with Trumps intent. Had Trump done non disclosures before? We know he did and we also know it was found that it was untrue what was not to be disclosed.

None of this is relevant.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It appears all these are piggy backing on INTENT being the unlawful act. His intent was Soley and only because of the election. Therefore should have been listed a campaign expense.

Yes, and quite a bit of testimony was made in order to demonstrate that intent.

If done simply to protect his brand, or family then it was legal expenses.

Nope, still not a legal expense. But few would probably care, and it likely would not have been caught.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

And what were those unlawful means? What is the crime?

Why is this question being asked over and over again?? It's been answered. Falsification of business records. That's what convicted felon Trump was convicted of. All 34 counts.

 

[ralliann]

Cohen, David Pecker and maybe others testified at trial as to Trump's state of mind with regard to these negotiations. Absolutely the prosecution had a burden to prove not only that Trump broke the law but the he did so with the intent of hiding another crime. The jury clearly felt that burden had been met.

And also testimony from a reputable witness to refute these testimonies. The justice department decided nothing was there. Cohen was unreliable. Also not allowed was an expert in election law. The Juudge would not allow that witness. But all of a sudden new attachment concerning the REASON HE DID THESE things was made a crime, an election crime FELONY.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And also testimony from a reputable witness to refute these testimonies.

Certainly, the defense was allowed to make its case with as many witnesses as it liked. The jury has decided. This is how trials work.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

And also testimony from a reputable witness to refute these testimonies.

Sure, which the jury heard. Clearly, they were not convinced.

 

[ralliann]

Why is this question being asked over and over again?? It's been answered. Falsification of business records. That's what convicted felon Trump was convicted of. All 34 counts.

No that was the dead misdemeanor. It became ANOTHER SECONDARY CRIME A felony IF HE DID IT TO CHANGE THE ELECTION....INTENT, PURPOSE

 

[ralliann]

Certainly, the defense was allowed to make its case with as many witnesses as it liked. The jury has decided. This is how trials work.

No he was not allowed Witnesses, concerning election law. Yet he allowed COHEN to speak on election law from the witness stand.
This will be settled in the appeals process. Even if it takes having to go beyond NEW YORK, to get there.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Does anyone else find it funny that if Trump just admitted to having an affair with Stormy Daniels in October 2016, none of this would have happened? He would have still won, he wouldn’t have had to try to cover up and end up getting convicted. His mistake was overestimating the moral fiber of Christians because they have shown they clearly didn’t care that he did.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

No that was the dead misdemeanor. It became ANOTHER SECONDARY CRIME A felony IF HE DID IT TO CHANGE THE ELECTION....INTENT, PURPOSE

The NY statute says its a class E felony. I don't know about the statute of limitations on it, though. But, I mean, how could convicted felon Trump's lawyers have missed this before the trial ever began and all the through it??

Also, if us non-lawyer internet forum users can't successfully rebut all of these lists and arguments by other non-lawyer internet forum users does that mean he's not guilty and has to be set free?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

This will be settled in the appeals process. Even if it takes having to go beyond NEW YORK, to get there.

Of course. That's how our legal system works. Will you accept the result if he loses his appeals though?

 

[essentialsaltes]

IF HE DID IT TO CHANGE THE ELECTION

We know that's why Cohen did it; he pleaded guilty to an ELECTION LAW VIOLATION.

If the Trump team's initial story were true, that Cohen did it out of the goodness of his heart, we wouldn't be here today. But that was a lie. He knew he was getting repaid, because he made a deal with Donald Trump to do so. And Cohen and Trump (and Weisselberg) agreed on a fraudulent way to repay Cohen, citing legal expenses that were fictitious.

--

Hope Hicks testified that Trump told her about a conversation he had with Cohen in mid-February 2018. It was the morning after Cohen had told The New York Times that he had paid the $130,000 to Stormy Daniels without Trump’s knowledge, Hicks recalled.

“Mr. Trump was saying he had spoken to Michael and that Michael had paid this woman to protect him from a false allegation. And that Michael felt like it was his job to protect him and that that’s what he was doing. And he did it out of the kindness of his own heart and he never told anybody about it.”

 

[FaithT]

No he was not allowed Witnesses, concerning election law. Yet he allowed COHEN to speak on election law from the witness stand.
This will be settled in the appeals process. Even if it takes having to go beyond NEW YORK, to get there.

And f it doesn’t?

 

[essentialsaltes]

No he was not allowed Witnesses, concerning election law.

He was allowed that witness, but the judge had ruled that certain questions were off limits. The judge gives the instructions to the jury about the law. Not the witnesses.

 

[ralliann]

Sure, which the jury heard. Clearly, they were not convinced.

I don't blame the jury, it was well predicted by Scholars that the jury was convinced a crime was there when there was none. This just one of the problems. I hope this gets out of new york to the supreme court.