GUILTY NY - Ex-President Donald Trump, charged with 34 criminal counts of falsifying business records, Apr 2023, Trial 25 Mar 2024 #4

[Deleted member 39678]

If trump could have kept his mouth shut and not whipped up a media frenzy, he might have had a chance at a change of venue.
As it was, the entire world knew what his opinions were about the upcoming trial. There was nowhere that wasn't exposed to his loud opinions. imo


"Wu added that Trump, who regularly rails against the case on social media and the campaign trail, is responsible for the media frenzy. He cannot drum up a media circus and then use that publicity to seek a change of trial venue ... "

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/08/trump-hush-money-judge-recusal-bid-aims-to-delay-evade-gag-order-da-.html

I think that Staten Island would have been a fairer place for a jury. The media would have covered this case the same way no matter what because of it's unprecedented nature. JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Wasn't just MC testimony.
David Pecker corroborated, written docunents supported.

MOO
DT knew republicans of that time (2016) would care that he was the type of guy that is with a *advertiser censored* star and others while has a wife with new baby at home.
Now they don't. MOO so overall it's a DT W.

I think it was established that an NDA was done. Which is not illegal nor what President Trump was charged with.

JMO.

 

[Cool Cats]

D - should be in the E Jean Carroll thread

 

[JennieM]

I think it was established that an NDA was done. Which is not illegal nor what President Trump was charged with.

JMO.

The way it was falsely recorded is illegal. He committed felony.


Prosecutors accuse the former president of illegally reimbursing Cohen for the hush-money payment by falsely classifying the transaction, executed by the Trump Organization, as legal expenses.

As jury begins deliberations in Trump’s hush-money trial, here’s what happened in the case

Former president’s New York criminal trial draws to a close as the US awaits a verdict

www.theguardian.com

'It's not hush money'​

Trump's now defending non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs.
He describes NDAs as honourable, accepted and something "everybody has".
But Trump blames the press for calling the NDA he had with Stormy Daniels hush-money: "It's not hush money, it's a non-disclosure agreement".
"Totally legal, totally common," he adds.
He was convicted not for paying the hush money or signing an NDA, but for how recorded the reimbursement to Michael Cohen for that payment in the Trump Organization's books.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-69069142/page/2

 

[SouthAussie]

DBM O/T for this thread ... should be in the E Jean Carroll thread. Sorry!

 

[Ursamajr]

He has not been convicted of rape and that was a civil trial with much lower standard, not reasonable doubt standard.

No violent felony convictions.

I'm not here to argue semantics. Trump is a rapist plain and simple. Donald Trump Jr. even believed it and didn't speak to his father for a year. To quote Ms.Taylor Allison Swift: "Blood's thick but nothing like a payroll".

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

<modsnip: no source link>

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The way it was falsely recorded is illegal. He committed felony.


Prosecutors accuse the former president of illegally reimbursing Cohen for the hush-money payment by falsely classifying the transaction, executed by the Trump Organization, as legal expenses.

As jury begins deliberations in Trump’s hush-money trial, here’s what happened in the case

Former president’s New York criminal trial draws to a close as the US awaits a verdict

www.theguardian.com

'It's not hush money'​

Trump's now defending non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs.
He describes NDAs as honourable, accepted and something "everybody has".
But Trump blames the press for calling the NDA he had with Stormy Daniels hush-money: "It's not hush money, it's a non-disclosure agreement".
"Totally legal, totally common," he adds.
He was convicted not for paying the hush money or signing an NDA, but for how recorded the reimbursement to Michael Cohen for that payment in the Trump Organization's books.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-69069142/page/2

I think that this testimony explains why the documents were labeled legal expenses. That means no law broken. JMO.

While prosecutors have seized on the categorization of the payments as “legal expenses” in Trump Organization bookkeeping records as a flagrant falsehood, McConney said under cross-examination that label was simply one of a limited number of choices in “a drop-down menu” in the dated computer system used by Trump’s finance personnel.

“These categories: There was a level of rigidity to them, right? … If you’re talking about payment to an attorney, legal expenses was the account that was used,” Trump lawyer Emil Bove asked McConney, who readily agreed.

Makes perfect sense to me.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/06/trump-hush-money-trial-paper-trail-checks-00156408

 

[JennieM]

I think that this testimony explains why the documents were labeled legal expenses. That means no law broken. JMO.




Makes perfect sense to me.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/06/trump-hush-money-trial-paper-trail-checks-00156408

The law has been broken and the jury has found it so.

 

[JennieM]

Trump’s gun license to be revoked following conviction, media reports say​

New York City police department to revoke Trump’s license after suspending permit to carry a concealed weapon in April 2023

Donald Trump’s license to carry a gun is expected to be revoked by the New York City police department now that he has been convicted of a felony, according to reports on Wednesday evening.

[…]

The former US president’s permit to carry a concealed weapon was suspended in April last year after he was indicted on charges of falsifying documents to cover up a payment to the adult film star Stormy Daniels, according to CNN.

Now, the NYPD is preparing to revoke Trump’s license altogether, CNN first reported, followed by NBC, with the latter citing a police spokesperson.

Trump’s gun license to be revoked following conviction, media reports say

New York City police department to revoke Trump’s license after suspending permit to carry a concealed weapon in April 2023

www.theguardian.com

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

No way for anyone to know the answer to that question. And it wasn't on the jury verdict form.

See link below.

See the final jury verdict form from Trump's hush money trial

Former President Donald Trump was found guilty on all 34 felony counts in the criminal hush money trial being held in New York City.

www.nbcnewyork.com

Thanks for finding a link. I knew I didn’t imagine it. I’m not convinced the judge knows. They just needed to be convinced of at least one of the underlying crimes, it didn’t matter which one. Just find one. imo

 

[musicaljoke]

I think that Staten Island would have been a fairer place for a jury. The media would have covered this case the same way no matter what because of it's unprecedented nature. JMO.

It will be interesting to see if Staten Island republicans continues to support T following his conviction on the fraud charges. They tend to be swayed more by issues than by firm party lines. In the past elections, a big part of their support for T' was based on his "law and order" platform, which has now gone poof.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

You talking Trump? Or Cohen? There are so many liars in Trumps circle, it is seriously hard to keep track. Sad.

It's obvious from my comments, the title of the linked article and the quote I took from it that I'm talking about Cohen.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I think that this testimony explains why the documents were labeled legal expenses. That means no law broken. JMO.




Makes perfect sense to me.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/06/trump-hush-money-trial-paper-trail-checks-00156408

Just because the money was given to a lawyer, even one's current on-retainer attorney, does not automatically make it a legal expense.

Anyone who's kept a ledger would know that a reimbursement is different from paying someone for their actual services. If someone lends you money to pay X bill, when you repay them, you count that as whatever category the X bill is, not based on the occupation of the person who lent you the money. IMO

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Just because the money was given to a lawyer, even one's current on-retainer attorney, does not automatically make it a legal expense.

Anyone who's kept a ledger would know that a reimbursement is different from paying someone for their actual services. If someone lends you money to pay X bill, when you repay them, you count that as whatever category the X bill is, not based on the occupation of the person who lent you the money. IMO

I think it proves that President Trump had no intent to falsify any documents. So not guilty. JMO.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I think it proves that President Trump had no intent to falsify any documents. So not guilty. JMO.

And I think that the very fact that they "grossed up" the payment so Cohen wouldn't incur taxes from this interaction, proves he was well aware it wasn't legal fees. When your lawyer bills you for actual legal services, you don't "gross up" their payment, you pay what you owe/agreed to.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Makes perfect sense to me.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/06/trump-hush-money-trial-paper-trail-checks-00156408

Only makes sense if you don't know the evidence.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1787490565254181030

 

[maamager]

I think that this testimony explains why the documents were labeled legal expenses. That means no law broken. JMO.

Makes perfect sense to me.

snipped

moo here's why i disagree:

1. intent matters: mislabeling the payments as legal expenses to hide their true purpose is the issue. the prosecution argued this was done to conceal campaign finance violations.
2. legal precedent: mislabeling expenses to hide illegal activities can still constitute a crime, as established in similar cases.
3. prosecution’s case: Payments were intended to influence the election, not legitimate legal expenses, violating state and federal laws.
4. cohen’s guilty plea: MC's plea to campaign finance violations supports the prosecution’s argument about the payments’ true intent.

Only makes sense if you don't know the evidence.

moo agreed, if you look at the raw evidence it's my opinion that its vindicated especially through precedent

 

[Inthedetails]

The law has been broken and the jury has found it so.

Yep, law and order in action. The jury, who heard all the evidence and deliberated on all the evidence, came back with the unanimous verdict of guilty.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I wonder if the judge even knows what the second crime was because afaik it wasn’t on the jury verdict form.

No way for anyone to know the answer to that question. And it wasn't on the jury verdict form.

See link below.

See the final jury verdict form from Trump's hush money trial

Former President Donald Trump was found guilty on all 34 felony counts in the criminal hush money trial being held in New York City.

www.nbcnewyork.com

I am confused how anyone could believe the judge has no idea what the other crime was. As if they could have held this whole monumental trial of the century and it was never mentioned, and that it got by the judge and all the attorneys as well. One big oops for everyone.

But anyone who cared enough to follow the trial knows the answer. And it was indeed covered by a zillion reporters with a zillion articles published and live tweets tweeted every day of the trial, so the information was and still is there for anyone who wants.

Bayou and Ranch, you can find out most accurately for yourself here:

Legal News & Analysis on Litigation, Policy, Deals : Law360

https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/

Those pages have all the transcripts and records of the case, including exhibits. You could find the jury instructions there and see if the other crime is ever mentioned. While you're there, you can even look up Exhibits 35 and 36, which are just some evidence that proves the charges without relying on Cohen's testimony alone.

Happy reading!

 

[Inthedetails]

I am confused how anyone could believe the judge has no idea what the other crime was. As if they could have held this whole monumental trial of the century and it was never mentioned, and that it got by the judge and all the attorneys as well. One big oops for everyone.

snipped

NYC court system - and all the people in it - are extremely experienced with complicated financial cases. The court house where this trial was held is literally within walking distance of Wall Street, our nation's financial center. The judges know the law and the prosecutors are experienced in explaining complicated information to juries. This is not their first case and it is not their last case.

People might be "confused" about the case.....but the court system in NYC is not confused.

jmo as a proud New Yorker