Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes it is clear what made this en election violation: the falsification of business records.It is not clear what made this an election violation. Remember not all jururs had to agree on the crimes. They were given a smorgasbord to choose from. That is not unanimous, it is just accepted anyway.
This "hush money" case, was about a legal non disclosure agreement which STORMY VIOLATED
They took a dead misdemeanor and resurrected it to a felony BASED UPON A SECONDARY CRIME. We do not know what crime that the jury found for this secondary crime that this case is about..Yes it is clear what made this en election violation: the falsification of business records.
This has been so from the beginning. But apparently Trump supporters can't process this tiny little bit of information. F.a.l.s.i.f.i.c.a.t.i.o.n o.f b.u.s.i.n.e.s.s. r.e.c.o.r.d.s. NOT an NDA.
The secondary crime was quite clearly explained in the jury instructions, beginning on page 30:They took a dead misdemeanor and resurrected it to a felony BASED UPON A SECONDARY CRIME. We do not know what crime that the jury found for this secondary crime that this case is about..
AND, this leads to the question, how can one prepare a defense when the crime is unclear? Or the crime is a smorgasbord of ideas? And if this secondary crime was unanimously found.
And what were those unlawful means? What is the crime?As I posted yesterday when this was brought up in another thread:
There were three "unlawful means" that the prosecution put forward. The jurors still had to agree unanimously that Trump conspired to promote an election by "unlawful means".
It was the money given to her in a non disclosure agreement. A legal expense, as most such agreements are. What is the unlawfulness in this?It had absolutely nothing to do with Ms. Daniels' NDA.
I believe it. One anecdote...My sister bought a house in a quasi-retirement community. Not a 55+ condo but a neighborhood wth many retirees in it (actually that has nothing to do with the story but it's a quiet place with a lot of American flags flying around the neighborhood. Anyway, She and her husband were doing yard work when a neighbor approached. They had been friendly with small talk but they weren't friends per say. So the neighbor asked here literally, "Do you think Donald Trump is going to be the savior of America?" Her husband rudely blurts out "I would believe that if I was crazy." The neighbor has not spoken to either one since. So "you" are everywhere in my personal once-removed experience. The neighbor had a look of surprise and was speechless so it made me think, there must be a whole crowd of people that think this way if these people weren't aware that seeing a President as a savior is a "normal" way of thinking. I guess in some places, it is.It's too late. We're everywhere. Mwa ha ha.
The worst people I've ever met in my life have been, to a person, conservative Christians. Christians are calling the Sermon on the Mount "weak". Christians are calling Donald Trump a "messiah".
Who in the Christian community is speaking out on this?
Not quite clear........The secondary crime was quite clearly explained in the jury instructions, beginning on page 30:
Not quite clear........
They need not be unanimously unlawful means were.....
They do not need to agree on the secondary CRIME.....
Quote.....
“By Unlawful Means” Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were."
I wonder how many Trump supporters actually realize that Trump is only for them as long as they’re kissing his hiney? This same man would turn on them faster than anything as soon as they disagree with him about anything. Trump doesn't care about anybody except himself.I don't see hatred and love as being mutually exclusive. Typically, hatred is the product of feeling betrayed. I think most people don't like Trump because, as a narcissist, he relies on slandering those who openly disagree with him, and he has shown the ability to manipulate people through this deception, into following his lead.
The exact nature of the unlawful means is irrelevant to the actual crime being charged - the crime is not "Conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by violation of campaign finance laws (or falsification of business records, or violation of tax laws)". So long as the members of the jury agree that Trump conspired to use unlawful means in order to promote or prevent the election of a person to public office, he is guilty.Not quite clear........
They need not be unanimously unlawful means were.....
They do not need to agree on the secondary CRIME.....
“By Unlawful Means” Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
1. A payment to another party in an NDA would not be correctly classified as a "legal expense". Ms. Daniels provided no legal services to Mr. Trump (or Mr. Cohen), nor did she incur any expenses in the pursuit of providing legal services.It was the money given to her in a non disclosure agreement. A legal expense, as most such agreements are. What is the unlawfulness in this?
Election crimes are FEDERAL. This is no different than what went on in Colorado attempting to make state law to take trump off a federal election ballot. Plus, how do you prepare to defend against a crime unless you know what the crime/means is?In accordance with New York State law.
This is about our justice system which should be important to all of us.I wonder how many Trump supporters actually realize that Trump is only for them as long as they’re kissing his hiney? This same man would turn on them faster than anything as soon as they disagree with him about anything. Trump doesn't care about anybody except himself.
Excuse me. Was Stormy Daniels representing Trump in court or something? That is not a legal expense.It was the money given to her in a non disclosure agreement. A legal expense,
What Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to.What is the unlawfulness in this?
States can and do have election laws as well.Election crimes are FEDERAL.
Repeating the same incorrect claims does not make them true. Multiple people have explained to you that you are wrong about this.This is no different than what went on in Colorado attempting to make state law to take trump off a federal election ballot. Plus, how do you prepare to defend against a crime unless you know what the crime/means is?
Michael Cohen's charges and conviction were for violating federal campaign finance law. Those occurred in the Federal Court System.Election crimes are FEDERAL. This is no different than what went on in Colorado attempting to make state law to take trump off a federal election ballot. Plus, how do you prepare to defend against a crime unless you know what the crime/means is?
Of course they are. Trumps supporters start donating reflexively every time Donald has an Ouchie.His enemies may be laughing at him ...
but his supporters are praying for him, and contributing money to his campaign.
I was initially surprised it's still in effect, since the jury has done its job, but of course part of the reason for it was the danger.Now Trump was talking about Cohen and said that he couldn’t mention him by name because of the gag order (maybe he said everybody knows who he’s talking about), he called him a sleezebag. I wonder if that violates the gag order? He’s incapable of keeping his mouth shut.
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.Now Trump was talking about Cohen and said that he couldn’t mention him by name because of the gag order (maybe he said everybody knows who he’s talking about), he called him a sleezebag. I wonder if that violates the gag order? He’s incapable of keeping his mouth shut.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?