The common thread in Trump's defenders

[SimplyMe]

Yep they did get their conviction. This is about Trump........and Cohen's conviction has nothing to do with Trump. Which you appear to continue to ignore. I don't...

Except that it proves you are wrong when you claim that money paid for an NDA is not a campaign contribution.

 

[ralliann]

Except that it proves you are wrong when you claim that money paid for an NDA is not a campaign contribution.

Not on Trumps part. That is what the feds concluded when they prosecuted Cohen. It did not prove anything about Trump to them, so......
This will go to appeal.......

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not on Trumps part.

That's why Trump was charged with falsifying business documents in an attempt to conceal Cohen's crime.

Trump didn't commit Cohen's crime. But he falsified documents to cover it up.

 

[DaisyDay]

It's also true that corporations are not allowed to make any donations directly to political campaigns, and at least some of the reimbursements were made to Cohen through the Trump Organization. I'm not clear on whether or not this played into any of the charges, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.

The Trump Organization maintained the ledgers and filed false documentation, but the first two payments were made from the Trump Revocable Trust (which Trump supposedly was blind to, heh, heh, heh) signed by trustees Junior and Weisselberg but the Trump Organization maintained the records, including the bogus invoices from Cohen and filed the records with the state of NY.

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.​

Subsequent checks were signed by Donald J himself, either from the Trust or from his own account.

The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account check and check stub dated February 14, 2017, bearing check number 000138, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.....

...The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about June 19, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in the Detail General Ledger for Donald J. Trump, bearing voucher number 858770, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.
​

What do you think?

 

[DaisyDay]

I know what COHEN bought. He bought stormy Daniels silence as that is what non disclosure agreements DO. And they are Legal, not illegal.

An NDA may or may not be legal, depending on the circumstances. As I mentioned before, Trump tried to impose NDAs on White House staff, which were non-enforceable, aka not legal.

Even if Donald Trump knew Cohen did it on his own (ridiculous because Trump could have easily done it himself, unlike Edwards) it is not illegal.

Cohen did not do it on his own as the recordings and hand-written notations verified. Trump doesn't do things himself - he pays others to do it to maintain plausible deniability.

Edwards accepted campaign Money, he used for a hidden purpose. Trumps money they turned into campaign money, simply because he was running for office.

No, that's not how it works. Trump lent his campaign money which was repaid with interest. He also charged his campaign oodles of moolah to use his venues, perhaps even overcharging if Stephanie Winston Wolkoff is to believed.

 

[DaisyDay]

The judge would not allow the defense to question Smith on what they wanted to ask him.
They wanted to show that there was no campaign finance violation, but the judge would not allow it.

Yet, His Crime and plea was not Trumps crime. Nor did they think anything amiss on the federal level.
Turley got it right in their legal decision........

Do you ever read the links provided? From the link kindly provided:

The People's motion is GRANTED. That the FEC dismissed the complaint against
Defendant and the DOJ decided against prosecuting Defendant for potential FECA violations are probative of nothing. These matters are therefore irrelevant and Defendant is precluded from eliciting testimony or introducing evidence about both. There are countless reasons why the FEC and DOJ could have decided not to pursue enforcement against Defendant, all having nothing to do with whether he is guilty of the charges here against him.
​

 

[BPPLEE]

Do you ever read the links provided? From the link kindly provided:

​

The People's motion is GRANTED. That the FEC dismissed the complaint against​

Defendant and the DOJ decided against prosecuting Defendant for potential FECA violations are probative of nothing. These matters are therefore irrelevant and Defendant is precluded from eliciting testimony or introducing evidence about both. There are countless reasons why the FEC and DOJ could have decided not to pursue enforcement against Defendant, all having nothing to do with whether he is guilty of the charges here against him.​

​

How does that contradict what I said?

 

[camille70]

From Jonathan Turley concerning a witness not allowed. Brad Smith was ready to testify.....

Without knowing election law, none of us knows what we are talking about. It was not allowed to the jury either....... Nor did Merchan speak to it either
The hill
Begin quote: "Merchan also barred the use of a legal expert, former FEC Chair Brad Smith, who was prepared to testify that such payments cannot be viewed as federal election violations and would not affect the election even if they were considered contributions, since they would not even have had to be reported until after the election."

"Merchan is likely to be upheld in denying the expert, since the court retains the authority to state what the law is to the jury. The problem is that Merchan failed to do so. Worse still, he allowed the jury to hear the opposite in the repeated false claim that these payments were campaign contributions." end quote

The payments were not what would influence the election. It was the Stormy Daniels story coming out. Trump was courting evangelicals and the "family values" crowd, and the concern was the story about his cheating on his wife by having sex with a porn star would cause him to lose enough support to lose the election. The info NOT being revealed, because she was paid to be silent, kept relevant information from voters that some may have considered in choosing a candidate. In hindsight, its likely the "unfaithful in little, unfaithful in much" family values crowd was still willing to toss those values for the power of a candidate willing to do their bidding, but his support was not so entrenched at the time. The payment of hush money coming out and affecting the election was not the issue, it was the story they quashed. Cohen contributed to Trump's election when he paid to stop it.

Also regarding a previous comment, Cohen didn't simply pay 130k and get reimbursed 130k. He was repaid 420k because they were lying about the reason for the payments, showing it as income (That he would have had to pay income tax on) for work he didn't perform. The 130k was doubled and then they paid him a 60k bonus.

The "unfaithful in little, unfaithful in much" standard only seems to apply to democrats. The GOP seems perfectly fine with someone committing tax fraud as long as it is someone on their team.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

This is why Trump's conviction is going to win him the White House.

 

[iluvatar5150]

This is why Trump's conviction is going to win him the White House.

Why? Because northern NY has gone Trumpy?

ref:New York's 21st congressional district - Wikipedia

 

[essentialsaltes]

But that was not proven

The jury disagrees

all that was proven was SOMEONE marked the payment down as legal expenses.

There was ample testimony that Trump was aware of and approved of the scheme that Weisselberg and Cohen came to him with about how to structure the payments as an imaginary monthly legal retainer with additional padding for taxes.

it took how many years for this to come after the crime?

Trump is partly to blame for that. He fought the subpoena for his (falsified) business documents all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The jury disagrees

I expected it to. Everyone did. No one thought he would have been found innocent in this case.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I expected it to. Everyone did. No one thought he would have been found innocent in this case.

That not what 'everyone' was saying when Bragg brought the indictment. He was being criticized for bringing a case where he couldn't secure a conviction.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

That not what 'everyone' was saying when Bragg brought the indictment. He was being criticized for bringing a case where he couldn't secure a conviction.

when it went to trial. No one I know thought he could get a fair trial. let alone be found innocent..

 

[iluvatar5150]

1. I am not a trump fan. I am a Ron Disantis fan.
2. The common fold are angry, Thats why Trumps popularity has skyrocketed since these bogus charges started to pop up all over the place.

Trump's popularity hasn't skyrocketed. It's barely moved.

ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

"Common folks" aren't angry. MAGAdonians are angry.

 

[iluvatar5150]

So the girl that was killed was not murdered? Tell that to her family!

No, she wasn't murdered. She was shot by law enforcement as she breached a barricade protecting a bunch of politicians.

It's funny how you can't see murder in police shooting an active attacker, but can't see it in kneeling on the neck of a passive detainee for several minutes. Just like how you can see "skyrocketing" in a mostly flat line.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I find this implausible.

CNN doesn't decide guilt. Juries do, and it did.

No I got point. It was a bad point, but I got it.

Convicted by a jury under the watch of a judge.

People try, but her mother is nuts.

THe riots existence do not inform the truth of the event that sparked them. They have no bearing on Chauvin's guilt. They are not evidence for or against him.

Which you clearly demonstrate.

lol

Like I said, You will only see what you want.

I will carry on.. I know what happened. and I see something is going to happen if this nonsense does not change soon. People are getting fed up with it..

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a clean up of some off-topic posts. The topic is not Derek Chauvin or J6.

Stick to the topic that is in the OP

Some posts were added to the clean up for flaming with ratings and goading. ​