GUILTY

[Bradskii]

From what I have seen (and this is from hearing about things indirectly)...

If I am incorrect - please correct me.

You give all the appearances of being a supporter of Trump. This has been a case that has not lacked for coverage. By any medium whatsoever. You'd be extremely hard pressed to pick up a newspaper, turn on a radio, tune in to a TV channel or simply log on to the internet without being inundated with information about it. It was a trial possibly without parallel in US politics. It is one of the cases that might well have a significant impact, not just on US politics, not just on US lives for the next 4 years and longer, but for the planet.

This is not by any means an exaggeration.

And you have spent post after post arguing about something you have only heard about 'indirectly'? Am I to take that seriously? And now you want to me to explain the intricacies of the case for you? Ye gods, man. Just type 'Trump' into Google and you will be flooded with all the information that you'll need.

So why not take a while out of forum banter and get up to speed - directly, so that when you come back into the discussions you'll know enough about it to enter into sensible discourse.

I'm not here to educate you.

 

[Pommer]

From what I have seen (and this is from hearing about things indirectly) they claim that Trump committed a crime for being a victim of blackmail and his lawyer at the time (who claimed that Trump did not know about the hush money payments, that he stole from Trump and that he was testifying to get revenge on Trump) misclassified the hush money payments.

If I am incorrect - please correct me.

“Landlord” is not generally synonymous with “innocent lamb”; do you think Trump will be fine with him being portrayed as a well-meaning dupe who got took by a crooked lawyer?

If he couldn’t outsmart Cohen what happens with Putin?

He’ll disavow this argument but quick.

 

[Zaha Torte]

The jury did.
Is that important at all....at a trial?

Did they? With the confusing instructions they received?

Besides - that doesn't really matter - because I am not trying to prove that Trump is innocent.

I am asking if anyone on here knows what he did.

 

[Zaha Torte]

You give all the appearances of being a supporter of Trump. This has been a case that has not lacked for coverage. By any medium whatsoever. You'd be extremely hard pressed to pick up a newspaper, turn on a radio, tune in to a TV channel or simply log on to the internet without being inundated with information about it. It was a trial possibly without parallel in US politics. It is one of the cases that might well have a significant impact, not just on US politics, not just on US lives for the next 4 years and longer, but for the planet.

This is not by any means an exaggeration.

And you have spent post after post arguing about something you have only heard about 'indirectly'? Am I to take that seriously? And now you want to me to explain the intricacies of the case for you? Ye gods, man. Just type 'Trump' into Google and you will be flooded with all the information that you'll need.

So why not take a while out of forum banter and get up to speed - directly, so that when you come back into the discussions you'll know enough about it to enter into sensible discourse.

I'm not here to educate you.

What have I argued exactly? I have asked people to explain what Trump did - that is it.

And your claim that the entire planet will be impacted by this case is proof positive that you believe that the trial was political.

 

[A2SG]

I am asking if anyone on here knows what he did.

He falsified business records, and did so in order to conceal another crime. 34 times.

-- A2SG, it was in all the papers.....

 

[Zaha Torte]

“Landlord” is not generally synonymous with “innocent lamb”; do you think Trump will be fine with him being portrayed as a well-meaning dupe who got took by a crooked lawyer?

If he couldn’t outsmart Cohen what happens with Putin?

He’ll disavow this argument but quick.

Cohen admitted to skimming from the top and that Trump did not know.

I don't think Trump is personally involved with every decision made.

 

[Bradskii]

I have asked people to explain what Trump did - that is it.

You obviously have an internet connection. You are reading this. Why are you asking people to explain to you what you should be investigating yourself?

And your claim that the entire planet will be impacted by this case is proof positive that you believe that the trial was political.

The result of the trial will obviously impact the election. And that has implications for everyone. And that is no exaggeration. Which makes me doubly confused as to why you seem to have made no attempt at even finding out why he is now a convicted felon. These plaintive comments along the lines of 'But what has he done' don't reflect well on you.

 

[Pommer]

Cohen admitted to skimming from the top and that Trump did not know.

I don't think Trump is personally involved with every decision made.

Well, we’ll see how Trump plays this lie*, won’t we?

*golf

 

[7thKeeper]

What have I argued exactly? I have asked people to explain what Trump did - that is it.

And your claim that the entire planet will be impacted by this case is proof positive that you believe that the trial was political.

And you have been explained this several times, in several threads to boot. You are at this point either intentionally playing ignorant or you don't bother actually reading the replies explaining this to you.

 

[Pommer]

Cohen admitted to skimming from the top and that Trump did not know.

Whoop-dee-doo, (was this germane to the jury’s charge?)

I don't think Trump is personally involved with every decision made.

He was involved in enough decisions to have been convicted on all 34 counts of the indictment.

 

[KCfromNC]

The way i see it, most politicians are crooked in one form or another....

This verdict will no doubt boost Trumps campaign!!

A stronger indictment of Donald's followers than most of us could get away with on this forum.

 

[Foamhead]

And you have been explained this several times, in several threads to boot. You are at this point either intentionally playing ignorant or you don't bother actually reading the replies explaining this to you.

You aren't going to reason with Trump's cult followers. They don't care what the facts are and aren't going to bother to look them up. They don't have an ideology or moral system just a nihilistic hatred of liberals, liberal causes etc...

 

[NxNW]

Of what exactly?

You haven't been reading the news? Falsifying business records in service of a crime, 34 counts.

 

[NxNW]

Explain what they are exactly.

A group of elected officials who pass laws and effect governmental policy.

 

[ralliann]

A payment for a non-disclosure agreement is a legal settlement. It is not a legal expense.

If it is to REACH A SETTLEMENT LEGALLY, it is a legal expense.

Legal expenses specifically refer to reimbursements for money that a lawyer spends in pursuit of work for their client. Things like paying expert witnesses, any fees associated with retrieving documents, travel expenses, etc.

The money was for a non disclosure agreement. The money went to the person to enter into the agreement, TO SETTLE IT. He was convicted not for this legal process, but why he did it. ONLY because he was running for political office, they made this a campaign expense. NEVER DONE BEFORE, AS Many people have DNA's.

Just because something is a legal matter and an expense does not make it a "legal expense". If Cohen had to travel to meet Daniels' attorneys, that would be a legal expense. If he paid a private investigator to verify her claims, that would be too. But fronting the money for the settlement is not.

The money did not go to COHEN, it went to Daniels......

And, actually, the car analogy is pretty apt. When you buy a car, you sign a legal contract. You agree to hand over a sum of money in exchange for a consideration (the car, in this case). An NDA is another form of legal contract - you agree to hand over a sum of money in exchange for a consideration (the other party's silence).

The only thing he paid for was a legally binding document, to be signed by stormy Daniels.

Importantly, you'll note that Trump's lawyers never made this argument during the trial. Rather, they focused on trying to show that Trump had no knowledge of the matter and was just signing off on Cohen's invoices.

They did that because they were attempting to establish INTENT for the agreement. Because the Judge and prosecutor were treating his INTENT as a political expense BECAUSE HE WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE. No other DNA is listed that way, and has never been treated that wat.

So you're either completely off-base, or Trump's $50 million in lawyers are totally incompetent.

Done here. You all milk this as you wish. It is what you do. Just like Colorado all over again....

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Done here.

Yes, I think we are.

 

[rambot]

Did they? With the confusing instructions they received?

Besides - that doesn't really matter - because I am not trying to prove that Trump is innocent.

I am asking if anyone on here knows what he did.

It's been posted several times so yes

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

My family believes the entire trial was fake. That the jurors are all Democrat plants picked by Joe Biden. There could not have been ANY evidence that they would have accepted.

And the reason is that they are brainwashed idiots who don't believe in education, critical thinking, or evidence.

I would leave out "idiots" and maybe say absorbed biased information. We have to walk on egg shells. It may be that this is a turning point, again. When people don't trust or respect the legal system they have no motive to comply with it, as we have seen January 6th.

 

[evoeth]

.When people don't trust or respect the legal system they have no motive to comply with it, as we have seen January 6th.

And who spread the unfounded belief that the election was stolen? Remind me again

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

And who spread the unfounded belief that the election was stolen? Remind me again

Really? You forgot?