[NotALoan]

Can you actually and most important intelligently explain how "Trump is done"?

I bet you couldn't even explain what laws he broke.

Don't worry, it's ok. Just keep your head burried deep in the sand.

Trump is accused of 34 counts of fraud under Article 175 of the New York Penal Law. He was found guilty of all 34 counts. It's not that complex.

[sweetleadz]

Trump is accused of 34 counts of fraud under Article 175 of the New York Penal Law. He was found guilty of all 34 counts. It's not that complex.

Thank you !!!!

[ridextreme]

Trump is accused of 34 counts of fraud under Article 175 of the New York Penal Law. He was found guilty of all 34 counts. It's not that complex.

This statement actually shows how ignorant people are.

In order to be charged with/found guilty of that article (look it up, educate yourself), he would have needed to falsify his business records to hide a crime.

So again, what was the crime he was hiding when he listed a payment to a lawyer at a business expense? Listing a payment to a lawyer who drew up NDA docs to pay someone not to talk about an affair she claimed she had with him is not illegal. And if it's not a "legal expense", then what is it a sheetrock expense?

The prosecution has no evidence of any crime being hidden via the entry of "legal expense". Therefore, this whole case was a sham.

[abfunders]

This statement actually shows how ignorant people are.

In order to be charged with/found guilty of that article (look it up, educate yourself), he would have needed to falsify his business records to hide a crime.

So again, what was the crime he was hiding when he listed a payment to a lawyer at a business expense? Listing a payment to a lawyer who drew up NDA docs to pay someone not to talk about an affair she claimed she had with him is not illegal. And if it's not a "legal expense", then what is it a sheetrock expense?

The prosecution has no evidence of any crime being hidden via the entry of "legal expense". Therefore, this whole case was a sham.

So the simple question is are you an attorney and are you the judge jury and executioner? Also the police? I'm not saying that it's system can't be rigged, but we have to have some level of confidence in our systems that potentially maybe somebody did something wrong here. Again, I'm not saying that he did anything wrong, however the legal system did find him guilty. And if you love America, you can't go around yelling that the systems that make America America are illegitimate. You're basically saying the entire America is illegitimate by doing that. It's in and of itself a contradiction. Is it possible that Trump lost the election? If it's automatically impossible, and it definitely was rigged because it's impossible, then you don't trust the system and you don't trust America. So what's the end goal? Fair elections, or Trump should win? Is the end goal to see a Justice system, or to further politicize it? I'm not taking a side, I just don't want all of this contradictions flooding everybody's minds. It has to be possible for somebody to be guilty for them also to be innocent. Nobody knows if they're all democrats, and nobody knows that Democrats could potentially say something nice. Biden has said many nice things about George w bush. I'm not saying he's clean, but it is possible for the left and the right to live in the same country. You don't have to agree, you just have to agree about the structure that keeps us together. Bill Maher had a great clip about this a few months ago go take a look. Just because I agreed to Trump's policies doesn't mean that I don't think that he's an incredibly shrewd mob boss. Crime or no crime, he is a literal savant in manipulation. After he's parted from this world, many people are going to feel relieved and others will feel stupid 10 years later.

[BR-Nightmare]

The prosecution has no evidence of any crime being hidden via the entry of "legal expense". Therefore, this whole case was a sham.

A jury of our peers would refute this, oh wait!

They did.

[NotALoan]

This statement actually shows how ignorant people are.

In order to be charged with/found guilty of that article (look it up, educate yourself), he would have needed to falsify his business records to hide a crime.

So again, what was the crime he was hiding when he listed a payment to a lawyer at a business expense? Listing a payment to a lawyer who drew up NDA docs to pay someone not to talk about an affair she claimed she had with him is not illegal. And if it's not a "legal expense", then what is it a sheetrock expense?

The prosecution has no evidence of any crime being hidden via the entry of "legal expense". Therefore, this whole case was a sham.

The article ACTUALLY is for offenses involving falsification of written statements; that does not solely include business records.

11 of the charges stem from invoices for legal records.

11 of the charges stem from checks paid for legal services.

12 of the charges stem from ledger entries for legal expenses.

The key decision for the jurors was to determine if Trump falsified records in an attempt to cover up the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, AND whether that cover-up was in anticipation of committing another crime, which is an election-law violation via federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of documents. I think you're missing the point of the trial, and what the jurors were deciding. You are also welcome to disagree with the verdict, but the fact is the burden of proof was on the prosecution, and they provided that proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This also was not a verdict that was reached quickly; the trial took 6 weeks, and the deliberation took another two or three days if I am not mistaken.

Of course, if you think our entire legal system is a sham, you're welcome to make your way to Putin's homeland. I hear they welcome Trump supporters over there with open arms. Can't speak to the validity of THEIR legal system, however.

[ridextreme]

The key decision for the jurors was to determine if Trump falsified records in an attempt to cover up the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, AND whether that cover-up was in anticipation of committing another crime, which is an election-law violation via federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of documents.

Arranging someone to sign a NDA is not a crime. Paying someone to not disclose they had an affair is not a crime. So what crime was he trying to cover up by listing the payment as a legal expense?

That's the question the defense has been asking but the prosecution refuses to say.

The judge clearly favored the prosecution, he was biased and should have recused himself. They weren't prosecuting a crime, they were prosecuting a person.

[Lmonus]

Arranging someone to sign a NDA is not a crime. Paying someone to not disclose they had an affair is not a crime. So what crime was he trying to cover up by listing the payment as a legal expense?

That's the question the defense has been asking but the prosecution refuses to say.

The judge clearly favored the prosecution, he was biased and should have recused himself. They weren't prosecuting a crime, they were prosecuting a person.

Whole thing is giving off Chuck Rhodes / Bobby Axelrod vibes from the very beginning.

[JasonBishop]

Olderguy

[JasonBishop]

..olderguy stop that California BS. Trump wins like it or not.

[BR-Nightmare]

..olderguy stop that California BS. Trump wins like it or not.

and if he doesn't? what will the excuse be?

[NotALoan]

Arranging someone to sign a NDA is not a crime. Paying someone to not disclose they had an affair is not a crime. So what crime was he trying to cover up by listing the payment as a legal expense?

That's the question the defense has been asking but the prosecution refuses to say.

The judge clearly favored the prosecution, he was biased and should have recused himself. They weren't prosecuting a crime, they were prosecuting a person.

Then he should appeal, which is his right to do, and I am sure his legal team will be proceeding with such.

[TheUnderwriter]

Arranging someone to sign a NDA is not a crime. Paying someone to not disclose they had an affair is not a crime. So what crime was he trying to cover up by listing the payment as a legal expense?

That's the question the defense has been asking but the prosecution refuses to say.

The judge clearly favored the prosecution, he was biased and should have recused himself. They weren't prosecuting a crime, they were prosecuting a person.

The judge only donated to the Biden Campaign (small dollars) and his daughter only works for the Democratic party. I am sure if the judge donated to 'Trump 2024 Campaign' , then it would of been a huge deal but donate to the Biden Campaign? Daughter works for the Demoractic party, One of the prosecutors was Bidens number 3 or 4 guy a few years ago but now part of the trial, nothing to see here. Was All legit and fair.... Was only a dead misdemeanor which was way past the statute of limitations and somehow revived and tied to multiple felonies somehow. all perfectly normal for something that happened in 2016 to come up in 2024.

[michaelh]

Arranging someone to sign a NDA is not a crime. Paying someone to not disclose they had an affair is not a crime. So what crime was he trying to cover up by listing the payment as a legal expense?

That's the question the defense has been asking but the prosecution refuses to say.

The judge clearly favored the prosecution, he was biased and should have recused himself. They weren't prosecuting a crime, they were prosecuting a person.

This is pretty simple. Its not a business expense. He was running for President. If he paid this out of Personal funds no crime. Deducting as an expense is tax Fraud.

[Funds4u]

This is pretty simple. Its not a business expense. He was running for President. If he paid this out of Personal funds no crime. Deducting as an expense is tax Fraud.

Since when does a business NDA have to come from a personal account? Furthermore, did 12 jurors convict him on tax fraud? nope.

[DTFdowntofund]

Arranging someone to sign a NDA is not a crime. Paying someone to not disclose they had an affair is not a crime. So what crime was he trying to cover up by listing the payment as a legal expense?

That's the question the defense has been asking but the prosecution refuses to say.

The judge clearly favored the prosecution, he was biased and should have recused himself. They weren't prosecuting a crime, they were prosecuting a person.

This.