Debate Now Did Trump Really Violate The Law?

[forkup]

I see what you are saying and it has valid points. Maybe, I don't see it, simply because he is running for President and that is a screwed up way of looking at it, but not sure that it is the wrong way of looking at it. I will support, whatever the judge decides, if others have been sentenced for this crime similarly in that state, in the past.

I completely see why you would be hesitant to suggest jail time is warranted. I even see how a judge would look at it in the same way.

I'm just of the opinion that if you're screwed no matter what you do. Just ignoring the consequences and doing what you would do otherwise is not a bad way to go.

In this case the defendant is a first-time offender, who's shown no sign of recognition that he even committed a crime, let alone expressed any remorse ,and who showed utter contempt for the legal system as a whole. I don't see how THAT defendant should be shown leniency by the court.

I'm pretty agnostic on the whole thing since there's upside and downsides to both positions. But when in doubt, do the right thing seems as good a position as any, and better than most.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The jury found DJT guilty.

What all you think is nothing more than your opinions.

 

[22lcidw]

The jury found DJT guilty.

What all you think is nothing more than your opinions.

Your thinking is of the Soviet Union and gulags.

 

[eagle1462010]

Send an Amicus Brief to New York. I am pretty sure, if what you say actually made a difference in the laws of New York, it would have been successfully argued by the defense. It may not have been their strategy. Are you starting to wonder about Republican lawyers yet. Donny's usually don't win, even in front of Trump appointed judges. The conservative ruled Supremes with 3 appointed by Trump himself, had no problem blowing off the arguments of Texas AG attempt to challenge the election. Republican lawyers are all show and no go. Great on the courthouse steps or on FOX NEWS, but not so much when it counts in a courtroom.

SCOTUS will eventually get it

Mow name the felony law broken spefic to each of the 34 MISDOMEANER counts.

 

[eagle1462010]

Projection at it’s best.

Name the specific charges that allow felony charges per count?

It aint the 34 Book Keeping entries Toots

 

[SweetSue92]

Ah I see. So how where others treated?

Cohen went to jail for his part in the payments.

Other people have been charged with falsification of business records, so the charge isn't new.

And finally John Edwards a Democrat was indicted for similar things by none other than Jack Smith. (Trying to hide a payment to a mistress by using a third party)

So I know of at least one other person who went to jail over this particular crime. I know that the charge itself is commonly prosecuted. And I know of another politician of the other side who was indicted under a similar fact set.

So why is this not fair? If precedent is your determining factor.

Cohen went to jail for a lot more than that.

 

[SweetSue92]

I don't know actually.

First time offender or not, when determining sentencing aggravating factors are also considered. Contrition, how egregious the consequences of the crime where, behavior during the proceeding.

I'll remind you that Cohen, also a first time offender went to jail, and he plead guilty. So I don't see anything besides his status as first time offender that would suggest leniency.

Cohen was convicted of a Class C felony. Trump's is Class E. But since we are just basing everything on feelings these days none of this matters

 

[Coyote]

But no one heard of it till now? THX, Linkless Care4none clone.

What rock have you been living under that you never heard of it until now?

 

[forkup]

Cohen went to jail for a lot more than that.

Not an answer.

Cohen went to jail over this. Even if he did other things on top, that doesn't change.

The charge of felonious falsification of business records is not a novel crime. A lot of people have been charged under the statute.

And finally. The facts as they are, or something very similar, has led to another indictment of a high-profile politician in the past.

So I ask again. If you define "fair" not by wether or not something is a crime but rather by if that crime has been prosecuted previously.

What exactly makes this prosecution "unfair?"

I'm letting you define the terms of the argument, although I disagree with the premise. The only thing I ask is that you apply them to this case and explain how you come to your conclusion.

 

[forkup]

Cohen was convicted of a Class C felony. Trump's is Class E. But since we are just basing everything on feelings these days none of this matters

Sentencing guidelines are NOT feelings. They are quite well-defined. So is how a judge assesses mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It looks like this is only valid when a crime has taken place though. Using money for your own campaign that you earned (if that's indeed what happened that is) is not a crime.

Actually it is. If you don't report that payment, and the amount is over a certain limit. In 2016 that limit was 2700 dollars.

That's the point.

Just a technical clarification.

#1 The $2,700 limit applies to non-candidates. Which applies to Cohen when he took a loan out on his home and funded the $130,000 payment to Daniels. That was the basis for his federal campaign fraud felony conviction.

#2 Candidates can contribute unlimited funds to their own campaign, but are required to report it to the campaign and such donations to their own campaign are subject to public reporting laws.

WW

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Send an Amicus Brief to New York. I am pretty sure, if what you say actually made a difference in the laws of New York, it would have been successfully argued by the defense. It may not have been their strategy. Are you starting to wonder about Republican lawyers yet. Donny's usually don't win, even in front of Trump appointed judges. The conservative ruled Supremes with 3 appointed by Trump himself, had no problem blowing off the arguments of Texas AG attempt to challenge the election. Republican lawyers are all show and no go. Great on the courthouse steps or on FOX NEWS, but not so much when it counts in a courtroom.

OJ was completely innocent too, right?

 

[Coyote]

Name the specific charges that allow felony charges per count?

It aint the 34 Book Keeping entries Toots

Those have been outlined multiple times in multiple articles, I’m not going to waste time endlessly reposting them.

 

[forkup]

Just a technical clarification.

#1 The $2,700 limit applies to non-candidates. Which applies to Cohen when he took a loan out on his home and funded the $130,000 payment to Daniels. That was the basis for his federal campaign fraud felony conviction.

#2 Candidates can contribute unlimited funds to their own campaign, but are required to report it to the campaign and such donations to their own campaign are subject to public reporting laws.

WW

Thanks for the clarification. Just so I got it right.

If I understand you correctly it is not the 2700 limit but solely the fact that it wasn't reported that makes it a crime?

It do know that the limit was specifically mentioned in the jury instructions as a possible "second crime." So that's a bit confusing if that limit would only apply to Cohen?

Page 30-31.

Not trying to argue. Just want it to be accurate.

 

[eagle1462010]

Just a technical clarification.

#1 The $2,700 limit applies to non-candidates. Which applies to Cohen when he took a loan out on his home and funded the $130,000 payment to Daniels. That was the basis for his federal campaign fraud felony conviction.

#2 Candidates can contribute unlimited funds to their own campaign, but are required to report it to the campaign and such donations to their own campaign are subject to public reporting laws.

WW

So self funded campaigns have to come to you for permission to give themselves money???



No proof required to just say it was for CAMPAIGN because the prosecutor says so.

NDAs are not illegal.

Political persecution by a Corrupt system.

 

[eagle1462010]

Those have been outlined multiple times in multiple articles, I’m not going to waste time endlessly reposting them.

BS. There are 3 used. What are they? Specify those 3 to each Misdomeaner

 

[WorldWatcher]

Thanks for the clarification. Just so I got it right.\

Thanks.

If I understand you correctly it is not the 2700 limit but solely the fact that it wasn't reported that makes it a crime?

Cohen committed federal campaign law violations for his in-kind contribution in support of the campaign whether he reported it or not by fronting the $130,000 Daniels payment

It do know that the limit was specifically mentioned in the jury instructions as a possible "second crime." So that's a bit confusing if that limit would only apply to Cohen?

Page 30-31.

Correct but you have to read in context, from page 32 right after mentioning the $2,700 limit the context has to do with 3rd party contributions. Cohen was the 3rd party. Party #1 is the candidate, "party #2" is the campaign, and party 3 is Cohen who was neither the candidate nor the campaign.

Not trying to argue. Just want it to be accurate.

That's cool.

So Cohen contacted Daniels when Pecker let the campaign know she was shopping the story after the Bush Tape went public. Pecker didn't want to pay for the story through AMI. Cohen took a loan out against his house to pay the $130K. Court evidence was presented that Trump knew about the scheme and would pay Cohen back later. Cohen's actions were a crime, Trump attempted to launder the money through his business to conceal Cohen's crime and it is the falsification of business records that Trump was charged with.

So the funny thing is, if Trump had simply gotten a certified check (or wire transfer) from his personal account without attempting to hide it by running it through his business entity, he wouldn't now be a convicted criminal.

• The sex was not a crime.
• The NDA was not a crime.
• Paying for the NDA was not a crime.
• Having his fixer lawyer front the payment during the campaign (campaign contribution, October 2016) before the election to pay back after the election (reimbursement, 2017) and then launder the money to conceal Cohen's contribution - that was the crime.

It was the money laundering through his company which was the illegal action.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

So self funded campaigns have to come to you for permission to give themselves money???

No. That's silly.

However self funded candidates are required to submit such funding to the FEC, however that is irrelevant here as Trump was not charged with a federal campaign violation. He was charged under the New York State Penal Code for felonious falsification of business records.

No proof required to just say it was for CAMPAIGN because the prosecutor says so.

Cohen was convicted of federal campaign finance fraud in federal court.

That fact was prima facia evidence at this trial that the Cohen's campaign fraud happened.

NDAs are not illegal.

Never said they were.

Political persecution by a Corrupt system.

Criminal prosecution of a corrupt criminal.

The system worked.

WW

 

[forkup]

Thanks.



Cohen committed federal campaign law violations for his in-kind contribution in support of the campaign whether he reported it or not by fronting the $130,000 Daniels payment



View attachment 957322

Correct but you have to read in context, from page 32 right after mentioning the $2,700 limit the context has to do with 3rd party contributions. Cohen was the 3rd party. Party #1 is the candidate, "party #2" is the campaign, and party 3 is Cohen who was neither the candidate nor the campaign.



That's cool.

So Cohen contacted Daniels when Pecker let the campaign know she was shopping the story after the Bush Tape went public. Pecker didn't want to pay for the story through AMI. Cohen took a loan out against his house to pay the $130K. Court evidence was presented that Trump knew about the scheme and would pay Cohen back later. Cohen's actions were a crime, Trump attempted to launder the money through his business to conceal Cohen's crime and it is the falsification of business records that Trump was charged with.

So the funny thing is, if Trump had simply gotten a certified check (or wire transfer) from his personal account without attempting to hide it by running it through his business entity, he wouldn't now be a convicted criminal.

• The sex was not a crime.
• The NDA was not a crime.
• Paying for the NDA was not a crime.
• Having his fixer lawyer front the payment during the campaign (campaign contribution, October 2016) before the election to pay back after the election (reimbursement, 2017) and then launder the money to conceal Cohen's contribution - that was the crime.

It was the money laundering through his company which was the illegal action.

WW

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[eagle1462010]

No. That's silly.



Cohen was convicted of federal campaign finance fraud in federal court.

That fact was prima facia evidence at this trial that the Cohen's campaign fraud happened.



Never said they were.



Criminal prosecution of a corrupt criminal.

The system worked.

WW

Cohen conviction doesnt mean Trump is guilty. Which Federal court convicted Trump??

Oh thats right didnt happen.

Cohen was found guilty of Tax evasion. Did Trump file them for him? Item 2 on that POS Judge.

Appeal will eventually overturn it. SCOTUS probably. But your side doesnt care because it will drag on past Nov 5th.

You are Scum