2024 undecided voters.

[YoursTruly]

2024 undecided voters:

The 2024 general elections in the USA, as were last few previous presidential elections, is expected to be won by comparatively small differences of numbers of votes cast for the two leading candidates in a few key states.

Trump having been found guilty of causing falsifying of business records for the purpose of enabling and/or concealing another crime, has not substantially changed the proportion of voters who firmly intend to vote for or against Trump in the 2024 general elections. The presiding judge has ordered Trump to appear in court to be sentenced on the 11th of July.

If 2024 undecided or less decided voters perceive trump's sentence to be comparatively harsh, (particularly if the sentence hinders Trump from traveling and campaigning throughout the USA, more of those less decided voters will decide in favor of Trump.

If 2024 undecided or less decided voters perceive trump's sentence to be comparatively mild, they may perceive the sentence to reflect Judge's
evaluation of the crime's severity, and more of those less decided voters will decide in favor of Trump.

I prefer the judge pronounce his reluctance to influence the 2024elections, and order Trump to return for sentencing on the 12th of November, a day after Veteran's Day and a week after Election Day, because I prefer he not again be elected president of the USA.
Respectfully, Supposn

I'm a fiscal and constitutional conservative. I have no one to vote for this time. At least none that I can actually support.

I don't lean left. But my options are a democrat vegetable and a left leaning Republican.

 

[Supposn]

So I see you have bought the lie, hook, line and sinker? Non-diclosures are perfectly legal. He paid the funds with his own money and did not do so until after the election. How in the world can that be a campaign contribution if the election was over? Also, why has no one yet specified the crime as you allege? All you seem to have is speculation. This is why the conviction will be overturned on appeal.

Admiral Rockwell Tory, the payment to Cohen was for services and expenses to acquire the nondisclosure agreement. It was acquired prior to the election. It was considered to be an "in-kind" contribution to Trump's election campaign that exceeded the legal limits of such a contribution, I believe those determinations themselves will eventually be legally sustained. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

So I see you have bought the lie, hook, line and sinker? Non-diclosures are perfectly legal. He paid the funds with his own money and did not do so until after the election. How in the world can that be a campaign contribution if the election was over? Also, why has no one yet specified the crime as you allege? All you seem to have is speculation. This is why the conviction will be overturned on appeal.

Admiral Rockwell Tory, the jury was presented with testimony and evidence linking the violations of 3 crimes. Excerpted from page 27 through 32 of the the judge's instructions to the jury;
Refer to link: Peoplev. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf (nycourts.gov)
Respectfully Supposn
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“...The Charged Crimes
I will now instruct you on the law applicable to the charged offense. That offense is FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE –34 COUNTS. FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE Penal Law§ 175.10
Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, that person: ...
...NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE
The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152. Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. …
…THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT
The first of the People’s theories of “unlawful means” which I will now define for you is the Federal Election Campaign Act. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, it is unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate with respect to any election for federal office, including the office of President of the United States, which exceeds a certain limit. In 2015 and 2016, that limit was $2,700. ...".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, the payment to Cohen was for services and expenses to acquire the nondisclosure agreement. It was acquired prior to the election. It was considered to be an "in-kind" contribution to Trump's election campaign that exceeded the legal limits of such a contribution, I believe those determinations themselves will eventually be legally sustained. Respectfully, Supposn

The FEC declined to prosecute this "donation", why does a New York state
official get to prosecute a federal "crime"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, the jury was presented with testimony and evidence linking the violations of 3 crimes. Excerpted from page 27 through 32 of the the judge's instructions to the jury;
Refer to link: Peoplev. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf (nycourts.gov)
Respectfully Supposn
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“...The Charged Crimes
I will now instruct you on the law applicable to the charged offense. That offense is FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE –34 COUNTS. FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE Penal Law§ 175.10
Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, that person: ...
...NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE
The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152. Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. …
…THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT
The first of the People’s theories of “unlawful means” which I will now define for you is the Federal Election Campaign Act. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, it is unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate with respect to any election for federal office, including the office of President of the United States, which exceeds a certain limit. In 2015 and 2016, that limit was $2,700. ...".

The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152. Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means

He falsified business records to promote his own election?

 

[Oddball]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, the payment to Cohen was for services and expenses to acquire the nondisclosure agreement. It was acquired prior to the election. It was considered to be an "in-kind" contribution to Trump's election campaign that exceeded the legal limits of such a contribution, I believe those determinations themselves will eventually be legally sustained. Respectfully, Supposn

Then he would have been charged under federal campaign finance statutes, which he wasn't.

Regurgitating incoherent media blather doesn't make it not incoherent media blather because it's regurgitated "respectfully".

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, the payment to Cohen was for services and expenses to acquire the nondisclosure agreement. It was acquired prior to the election. It was considered to be an "in-kind" contribution to Trump's election campaign that exceeded the legal limits of such a contribution, I believe those determinations themselves will eventually be legally sustained. Respectfully, Supposn

Too bad the FEC investigated and found that not to be true. You are merely spouting lies from the Biden lawfare regime.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, the jury was presented with testimony and evidence linking the violations of 3 crimes. Excerpted from page 27 through 32 of the the judge's instructions to the jury;
Refer to link: Peoplev. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf (nycourts.gov)
Respectfully Supposn
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
“...The Charged Crimes
I will now instruct you on the law applicable to the charged offense. That offense is FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE –34 COUNTS. FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE Penal Law§ 175.10
Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, that person: ...
...NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE
The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152. Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. …
…THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT
The first of the People’s theories of “unlawful means” which I will now define for you is the Federal Election Campaign Act. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, it is unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate with respect to any election for federal office, including the office of President of the United States, which exceeds a certain limit. In 2015 and 2016, that limit was $2,700. ...".

If he never committed the first offense, then he is innocent of all three. It was never proven that Trump falsified any records. Even if he did, it was a misdemeanor that the statute of limitations has expired. For a second point, exactly who was defrauded? Many legal experts, conservative and liberals both, have stated that this will never survive an appeal.

You are simply rehashing old arguments that were proven false at the trial, but the jury was instructed to ignore those factors.

 

[Supposn]

Then he would have been charged under federal campaign finance statutes, which he wasn't.

Regurgitating incoherent media blather doesn't make it not incoherent media blather because it's regurgitated "respectfully".

Oddball you saw it and called it exactly as the same way as the NY State DA called it.

It's not illegal to pay your lawyer for services and expenses, and it's not illegal to contribute to a candidate's political campaign, but there's a federal law limiting the amount you can contribute for the benefit of a candidate seeking a federal office. The entry in business records to pay Cohen, (Trump's lawyer), was considered to be an in-kind contribution to promote Trump's election campaign, which was illegal because it exceeded the $27,000 legal maximum for such a contribution. That in effect made the payments entered in the records ostensibly for ordinary legal services and expenses to actually been for enabling an illegal act,, (i.e. a crime).

I suppose there's some, (but not a lot) of legal precedent for such a prosecution. I also suppose if Trump would have paid no more than $27,000 for those nondisclosure agreements and everything else, no crime would have been committed.

The NY jury was presented with testimony and evidence linking violations of 3 crimes. Excerpted from page 27 through 32 of the the judge's instructions to the jury; Refer to link:
People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf (nycourts.gov)
RespectfullySupposn

 

[Oddball]

Oddball you saw it and called it exactly as the same way as the NY State DA called it.

It's not illegal to pay your lawyer for services and expenses, and it's not illegal to contribute to a candidate's political campaign, but there's a federal law limiting the amount you can contribute for the benefit of a candidate seeking a federal office. The entry in business records to pay Cohen, (Trump's lawyer), was considered to be an in-kind contribution to promote Trump's election campaign, which was illegal because it exceeded the $27,000 legal maximum for such a contribution. That in effect made the payments entered in the records ostensibly for ordinary legal services and expenses to actually been for enabling an illegal act,, (i.e. a crime).

I suppose there's some, (but not a lot) of legal precedent for such a prosecution. I also suppose if Trump would have paid no more than $27,000 for those nondisclosure agreements and everything else, no crime would have been committed.

The NY jury was presented with testimony and evidence linking violations of 3 crimes. Excerpted from page 27 through 32 of the the judge's instructions to the jury; Refer to link:
People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf (nycourts.gov)
RespectfullySupposn

And NOBODY was presented with the underlying crime, which made those subsequent violations criminal.....Not even you.

 

[Mashmont]

A conviction isn’t an excuse, it’s a FACT.

#GRIFTERinCHIEF

Jesus was also convicted. So what?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oddball you saw it and called it exactly as the same way as the NY State DA called it.

It's not illegal to pay your lawyer for services and expenses, and it's not illegal to contribute to a candidate's political campaign, but there's a federal law limiting the amount you can contribute for the benefit of a candidate seeking a federal office. The entry in business records to pay Cohen, (Trump's lawyer), was considered to be an in-kind contribution to promote Trump's election campaign, which was illegal because it exceeded the $27,000 legal maximum for such a contribution. That in effect made the payments entered in the records ostensibly for ordinary legal services and expenses to actually been for enabling an illegal act,, (i.e. a crime).

I suppose there's some, (but not a lot) of legal precedent for such a prosecution. I also suppose if Trump would have paid no more than $27,000 for those nondisclosure agreements and everything else, no crime would have been committed.

The NY jury was presented with testimony and evidence linking violations of 3 crimes. Excerpted from page 27 through 32 of the the judge's instructions to the jury; Refer to link:
People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf (nycourts.gov)
RespectfullySupposn

The entry in business records to pay Cohen, (Trump's lawyer), was considered to be an in-kind contribution to promote Trump's election campaign, which was illegal because it exceeded the $27,000 legal maximum for such a contribution.

Paying Cohen means Trump made a "too large contribution", to himself?

That in effect made the payments entered in the records ostensibly for ordinary legal services and expenses to actually been for enabling an illegal act,, (i.e. a crime).

What crime?

I also suppose if Trump would have paid no more than $27,000 for those nondisclosure agreements and everything else, no crime would have been committed.

What's the maximum legal self-contribution? Link?

 

[Supposn]

If he never committed the first offense, then he is innocent of all three. It was never proven that Trump falsified any records. Even if he did, it was a misdemeanor that the statute of limitations has expired. For a second point, exactly who was defrauded? Many legal experts, conservative and liberals both, have stated that this will never survive an appeal.

You are simply rehashing old arguments that were proven false at the trial, but the jury was instructed to ignore those factors.

Admiral Rockwell Tory, now you're being silly; “old arguments that were proven false at the trial, but the jury was instructed to ignore those factors”? You've read all of that within the published transcripts of the judge's instructions to the jury?

A jury unanimously voted that that Trump did cause Cohen, his lawyer to be compensated for services and expenses to purchase a nondisclosure agreement on his behalf. You're contending the jury was mistaken? Despite all Cohen's, Stormy Daniel's and all other testimony and evidence which was presented to the jury, the jury should not have believed “beyond reasonable doubt” that's what Trump caused to be done and why he did it? Respectfully Supposn

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Admiral Rockwell Tory, now you're being silly; “old arguments that were proven false at the trial, but the jury was instructed to ignore those factors”? You've read all of that within the published transcripts of the judge's instructions to the jury?

A jury unanimously voted that that Trump did cause Cohen, his lawyer to be compensated for services and expenses to purchase a nondisclosure agreement on his behalf. You're contending the jury was mistaken? Despite all Cohen's, Stormy Daniel's and all other testimony and evidence which was presented to the jury, the jury should not have believed “beyond reasonable doubt” that's what Trump caused to be done and why he did it? Respectfully Supposn

If what you say is true, why has almost every media legal pundit stated, without hesitation, that the appeal will overturn this conviction because it is based on a litany of lies? The jury was given the opportunity to convict on made up laws, and an opportunity to assuage their hatred of Trump. The judge is corrupt beyond any measure.

You really should be more intelligent than you are showing.

 

[Supposn]

If he never committed the first offense, then he is innocent of all three. It was never proven that Trump falsified any records. Even if he did, it was a misdemeanor that the statute of limitations has expired. For a second point, exactly who was defrauded? Many legal experts, conservative and liberals both, have stated that this will never survive an appeal.

You are simply rehashing old arguments that were proven false at the trial, but the jury was instructed to ignore those factors.

Admiral Rockwell Tory and Toddsterpatriot, occasionally within various internet forums, I've stated members of juries in NY City and everywhere else in the USA, generally take their oaths seriously.
If a single juror agreed with you, they would not have been able to reach a guilty verdict. All that was required was one juror who shared your point of view and also was not sufficiently biased and unable to pass through the pretrial questioning of potential jurors by both the prosecuting and defending attorneys.

In a judge's court, it is only the judge's legal opinion that matters. I expect Trump's lawyers to appeal the convictions. I expect upon final appeals, despite Trump's attorneys or your arguments, the final appeals court will sustain the conviction.

Toddsterpatriot, read the instructions to the jury. There's no differentiation for self-contribution benefiting candidates seeking a federal elected office. Respectfully Supposn

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Admiral Rockwell Tory and Toddsterpatriot, occasionally within various internet forums, I've stated members of juries in NY City and everywhere else in the USA, generally take their oaths seriously.
If a single juror agreed with you, they would not have been able to reach a guilty verdict. All that was required was one juror who shared your point of view and also was not sufficiently biased and unable to pass through the pretrial questioning of potential jurors by both the prosecuting and defending attorneys.

In a judge's court, it is only the judge's legal opinion that matters. I expect Trump's lawyers to appeal the convictions. I expect upon final appeals, despite Trump's attorneys or your arguments, the final appeals court will sustain the conviction.

Toddsterpatriot, read the instructions to the jury. There's no differentiation for self-contribution benefiting candidates seeking a federal elected office. Respectfully Supposn

There's no differentiation for self-contribution benefiting candidates seeking a federal elected office.

No difference in donation limits?

 

[Supposn]

If what you say is true, why has almost every media legal pundit stated, without hesitation, that the appeal will overturn this conviction because it is based on a litany of lies? The jury was given the opportunity to convict on made up laws, and an opportunity to assuage their hatred of Trump. The judge is corrupt beyond any measure. ...

​

​

Admiral Rockwell Tory, "Based on a litany of lies? The jury was given the opportunity to convict on made up laws, and an opportunity to assuage their hatred of Trump. The judge is corrupt beyond any measure"? Those ain't valid arguments to present to appeals judges.

I can conceive of this case being overturned as a case of political selective prosecution, but there are some precedencies. Due to our current legal and political climate, I don't believe that will happen. The U.S. Supreme Court would be particularly reluctant to publicly discuss political selective prosecution. The topics to close to the topic of political selective adjudication.

I don't think this case will be sent back for retrial or overturned due to the presiding judge and the defending attorney's inability to reign in some of Stormy Daniel's testimony. The defense attorneys should have understood the risk of not stipulating to the occurrence of the sexual encounter between her and Trump. That effectively required the prosecution to call the woman as a witness.

In my layman's opinion, Trump's attorneys will seek and find something to argue within the many page transcript of the judge's instructions to the Jury. I suppose it's so many pages due to the indictment's complexity and the judge's cautious care. His need to be cautious is one of the reasons I doubt that trump's attorneys' will find sufficient cause for an appeals court to hear and not sustain Trump's conviction.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

There's no differentiation for self-contribution benefiting candidates seeking a federal elected office.

No difference in donation limits?

Toddsterpatriot, if there was a difference, and the limit were $130,000. or greater, there would not have been an indictment. If you found otherwise, share your link with us all. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

If what you say is true, why has almost every media legal pundit stated, without hesitation, that the appeal will overturn this conviction because it is based on a litany of lies? The jury was given the opportunity to convict on made up laws, and an opportunity to assuage their hatred of Trump. The judge is corrupt beyond any measure. ...

Admiral Rockwell Tory, since 1948 I've had less confidence in opinion polls. At least let's limit are polling populations to those that can practice law in a NY State or in a U.S. Federal District court room.

Would you then say almost every one of those lawyers and judges, or almost all of those lawyers and judges who are Republicans, or almost all those lawyers and judges who are Trump supporters stated, without hesitation, that the appeal will overturn this conviction because it is based on a litany of lies? Respectfully. Supposn

 

[kyzr]

There's no differentiation for self-contribution benefiting candidates seeking a federal elected office.

No difference in donation limits?

There is no limit to how much a candidate can contribute to his own campaign, its called "free speech".

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org