Cuomo:"Those (Trump) cases in New York were a joke. The cases they brought against him reeked of politics."

[multivita-man]

Aaaand what was the other crime?View attachment 1139008

Campaign finance and tax laws. It's not necessary to prove Trump knew he was concealing the commission of a crime; it's only necessary to demonstrate that he willfully engaged in conduct to conceal. He claimed these payments were legal fees - they weren't.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

either he did or did not do it

That's true of everyone, what's the point? put everyone on trial? lock up political opponents because they "either did or they didn't"?...actually that may become a thing now.

 

[DonGlock26]

Sam Donaldson's still alive?

Had no idea.

As for the substance of the post, if those cases were unserious, they wouldn't have proceeded and Trump wouldn't have been convicted by a jury.

He was convicted 34 times of criminal fraud. Period.

The reason Aileen Canon sat on the documents case is because she knew he would be likely convicted of at least some of the federal charges had the case gone to court.

With all of that being said, prosecuting a former president and a candidate to be the next officeholder was always going to be a divisive issue. For years, I was of the opinion that Gerald Ford got it wrong when he pardoned Richard Nixon. Time and this episode has proven that he was correct.

Biden should have offered a federal pardon, left it at that, and focused on the economy. Instead he got dragged into many of Trump's dramas, with the charge that he was directing schemes against him to subvert his opponent and the will of the American people.

We'll see how the appeals go.

 

[DonGlock26]

Falsification of business records in an attempt to conceal another crime, which is a felony under New York law.

What crime?

 

[multivita-man]

What crime?

See post #21

 

[DonGlock26]

See post #21

How do we know there was a crime?

 

[Eman623]

Campaign finance and tax laws. It's not necessary to prove Trump knew he was concealing the commission of a crime; it's only necessary to demonstrate that he willfully engaged in conduct to conceal. He claimed these payments were legal fees - they weren't.

That is your opinion and the alleged underlying crime was not named by the prosecution in the indictment or found guilty of by the jury.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes.

It was the BS felony charges getting dismissed that reeked of politics, not the BS felony charges themselves.

You people never get the right side of an issue - it has to be purposeful.

Nobody is that ******* stupid.

Right?

Trump would be in prison if he didn’t win the election.
As President, he gets to pick his prosecutor who surprisingly dropped the charges.

A travesty of Justice

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Falsification of business records in an attempt to conceal another crime, which is a felony under New York law.

Sounds serious! What other crime was he trying to conceal?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Campaign finance and tax laws. It's not necessary to prove Trump knew he was concealing the commission of a crime; it's only necessary to demonstrate that he willfully engaged in conduct to conceal. He claimed these payments were legal fees - they weren't.

Campaign finance and tax laws.

No tax laws were violated.
NDAs aren't campaign contributions.

It's not necessary to prove Trump knew he was concealing the commission of a crime

It should be necessary to prove there was another crime.

He claimed these payments were legal fees - they weren't.

How should payments for NDAs be categorized?

 

[DonGlock26]

Sounds serious! What other crime was he trying to conceal?

 

[multivita-man]

Campaign finance and tax laws.

No tax laws were violated.
NDAs aren't campaign contributions.

They weren't legal fees. They weren't business expenses. He wouldn't have spent the money to keep Stormy silent if he weren't running for office, so at minimum, it's a campaign expense that has to be reported.

It's not necessary to prove Trump knew he was concealing the commission of a crime

It should be necessary to prove there was another crime.

Well, it's not. All that's required is to show that the conduct was intended to falsify records for the purposes of concealing a crime, which was easy to do because, as I said, the records were clearly false and the falsely recorded 'business' payments were deliberately intended to circumvent campaign finance laws.

He claimed these payments were legal fees - they weren't.

How should payments for NDAs be categorized?

It depends on what the purpose and context are. If these were usual business records, file them as business expenses.

But they weren't business records.

 

[multivita-man]

That is your opinion

Given that he's been convicted in court., it's not my opinion; it's legal fact.

and the alleged underlying crime was not named by the prosecution in the indictment or found guilty of by the jury.

Not required.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They weren't legal fees. They weren't business expenses. He wouldn't have spent the money to keep Stormy silent if he weren't running for office, so at minimum, it's a campaign expense that has to be reported.



Well, it's not. All that's required is to show that the conduct was intended to falsify records for the purposes of concealing a crime, which was easy to do because, as I said, the records were clearly false and the falsely recorded 'business' payments were deliberately intended to circumvent campaign finance laws.



It depends on what the purpose and context are. If these were usual business records, file them as business expenses.

But they weren't business records.

NDAs are deductible business expenses.

He wouldn't have spent the money to keep Stormy silent if he weren't running for office,

How do you know? How much did he spend before he ever ran?

falsely recorded 'business' payments were deliberately intended to circumvent campaign finance laws.

He funded his own campaign and didn't report a self-donation?
Sounds like a small fine is in order.

If these were usual business records, file them as business expenses.

Legal expenses are business expenses.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Given that he's been convicted in court., it's not my opinion; it's legal fact.

Was he convicted in court of a felony business record falsification in order
to evade campaign finance laws?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Not required.

Not required to name the underlying felony?

Damn, that's hilarious!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

All that's required is to show that the conduct was intended to falsify records for the purposes of concealing a crime, which was easy to do

The FEC didn't consider the NDA a campaign contribution, so no crime.

 

[multivita-man]

Was he convicted in court of a felony business record falsification in order
to evade campaign finance laws?

No. He was convicted of falsifying business records, which in and of itself is a misdemeanor. It became a felony when it could be reasonably deduced that he was falsifying records in order to avoid reporting his hush money payments as a campaign expenditure, which was required under law.

Personally, I think it's an example of someone being convicted of a legal catch-all, like a drug dealer being convicted of not paying taxes on what he gets on the street or Al Capone getting convicted for not paying taxes on his boozie bootlegging.

There's a reason laws like that exist, however. If we allowed business executives to falsify records, we'd have some pretty serious transparency problems. If you want to argue that this was a pretty piss poor usage of the law, I can at least entertain that idea, though it doesn't change the legal validity of his convictions.

 

[Blaster]

No. He was convicted of falsifying business records, which in and of itself is a misdemeanor. It became a felony when it could be reasonably deduced that he was falsifying records in order to avoid reporting his hush money payments as a campaign expenditure, which was required under law.

Personally, I think it's an example of someone being convicted of a legal catch-all, like a drug dealer being convicted of not paying taxes on what he gets on the street or Al Capone getting convicted for not paying taxes on his boozie bootlegging.

There's a reason laws like that exist, however. If we allowed business executives to falsify records, we'd have some pretty serious transparency problems. If you want to argue that this was a pretty piss poor usage of the law, I can at least entertain that idea, though it doesn't change the legal validity of his convictions.

Bullshit

 

[BackAgain]

Trump getting all of those felony charges dismissed reeked of politics.
They were dismissed not because of innocence but because he won an election.

That and SCOTUS ruling a President is above the law

Nonsense.