Zone1 NY State's politically selectively prosecution of Trump?

[Supposn]

NY State's politically selectively prosecution of Trump?
I contend Donald Trump's behavior and actions while and after he served as president of the United States has been inferior to all or almost all, and superior to no other U.S. President. However, in the USA everyone is entitled to due process of law.

In May 2024, Trump was convicted for having prior to his election to office, committed 34 counts of causing business records falsifications. The indictment was falsification for the purpose of concealing one or more underlying crimes, but the underlying crimes were not explicitly specified.

In my unprofessional legal opinion, the accusation of NY State in this case having politically selectively prosecuted Trump is not without some merit.
I'm supposing NY State rarely indicts anyone of falsifying business records for the underlying purpose of obtaining more favorable loan rates. NY may not have sufficient judges and courts to prosecute all such cases.

Paying for a non-disclosure agreement, or paying an extortionist is not a crime and I question if the prosecution's alleged motive for that payment has, as it required to be in a criminal case), proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Concealing facts or accusations from your wife and your family, or the voters and the remaining public may, or may not be reprehensible, but it's generally not a crime. Influencing voters, (i.e. political campaigning) is certainly not a crime. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[ReinyDays]

NY State's politically selectively prosecution of Trump?
I contend Donald Trump's behavior and actions while and after he served as president of the United States has been inferior to all or almost all, and superior to no other U.S. President. However, in the USA everyone is entitled to due process of law.

In May 2024, Trump was convicted for having prior to his election to office, committed 34 counts of causing business records falsifications. The indictment was falsification for the purpose of concealing one or more underlying crimes, but the underlying crimes were not explicitly specified.

In my unprofessional legal opinion, the accusation of NY State in this case having politically selectively prosecuted Trump is not without some merit.
I'm supposing NY State rarely indicts anyone of falsifying business records for the underlying purpose of obtaining more favorable loan rates. NY may not have sufficient judges and courts to prosecute all such cases.

Paying for a non-disclosure agreement, or paying an extortionist is not a crime and I question if the prosecution's alleged motive for that payment has, as it required to be in a criminal case), proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Concealing facts or accusations from your wife and your family, or the voters and the remaining public may, or may not be reprehensible, but it's generally not a crime. Influencing voters, (i.e. political campaigning) is certainly not a crime. Respectfully, Supposn

"New York Law § 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. 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 a misdemeanor."

Concealing facts from the voters might not generally be a crime, but it is in New York ... Trump knew this ... are these prosecutors there elected? ... then prosecutions will ALL be political ... have Alabama go after the Bidens ...

Long past time we went after these crooks ... and take the gloves off ... Joe Biden concealed from voters his drug addicted son was buying guns ... same crime as Trump was convicted of ... sic' 'em 'Bama ...

 

[Dr.Know]

NY State's politically selectively prosecution of Trump?
I contend Donald Trump's behavior and actions while and after he served as president of the United States has been inferior to all or almost all, and superior to no other U.S. President. However, in the USA everyone is entitled to due process of law.

In May 2024, Trump was convicted for having prior to his election to office, committed 34 counts of causing business records falsifications. The indictment was falsification for the purpose of concealing one or more underlying crimes, but the underlying crimes were not explicitly specified.

In my unprofessional legal opinion, the accusation of NY State in this case having politically selectively prosecuted Trump is not without some merit.
I'm supposing NY State rarely indicts anyone of falsifying business records for the underlying purpose of obtaining more favorable loan rates. NY may not have sufficient judges and courts to prosecute all such cases.

Paying for a non-disclosure agreement, or paying an extortionist is not a crime and I question if the prosecution's alleged motive for that payment has, as it required to be in a criminal case), proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Concealing facts or accusations from your wife and your family, or the voters and the remaining public may, or may not be reprehensible, but it's generally not a crime. Influencing voters, (i.e. political campaigning) is certainly not a crime. Respectfully, Supposn

Ur an idiot if you think Biden is good as he floods the US cities to the point of bankruptcy over HELPING ILLEGALS ENTER THE COUNTRY ON FALSE PRETENSES OF ASYLUM when most of them would fail an asylum hearing.

 

[Supposn]

"New York Law § 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. 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 a misdemeanor."

Concealing facts from the voters might not generally be a crime, but it is in New York ... Trump knew this ... are these prosecutors there elected? ... then prosecutions will ALL be political ... have Alabama go after the Bidens ...

Long past time we went after these crooks ... and take the gloves off ... Joe Biden concealed from voters his drug addicted son was buying guns ... same crime as Trump was convicted of ... sic' 'em 'Bama ...

ReinyDays, I'm assuming your posted transcript of "NewYork Law § 17-152 is correct; the key words within that text in your posted transcript are “by unlawful means”.

I argue in the case of NY State's indictment and conviction of Donald Trump, some are entitled to believe paying to obtain a non-disclosure agreement for the purpose of concealing an accusation or facts from the voters is reprehensible, but it ain't illegal. I've previously posted my reasons for questioning if this NY State's prosecution of Trump wasn't a case of political selective prosecution. I believe that conviction may be overturned.

Your post doesn't explicitly state what specific legal fault you believe has occurred within the trial of Hunter Biden. Thus far I haven't had a reason to consider or question the validity of Hunter Biden's conviction. (both of those defendants, Hunter Biden and Donald Trump were found guilty of all their indictments' charges). Respectfully Supposn

 

[elektra]

Concealing facts or accusations from your wife and your family, or the voters and the remaining public may, or may not be reprehensible, but it's generally not a crime. Influencing voters, (i.e. political campaigning) is certainly not a crime. Respectfully, Supposn

How did Trump conceal anything, when he wrote checks?

 

[Curried Goats]

NY State's politically selectively prosecution of Trump?
I contend Donald Trump's behavior and actions while and after he served as president of the United States has been inferior to all or almost all, and superior to no other U.S. President. However, in the USA everyone is entitled to due process of law.

In May 2024, Trump was convicted for having prior to his election to office, committed 34 counts of causing business records falsifications. The indictment was falsification for the purpose of concealing one or more underlying crimes, but the underlying crimes were not explicitly specified.

In my unprofessional legal opinion, the accusation of NY State in this case having politically selectively prosecuted Trump is not without some merit.
I'm supposing NY State rarely indicts anyone of falsifying business records for the underlying purpose of obtaining more favorable loan rates. NY may not have sufficient judges and courts to prosecute all such cases.

Paying for a non-disclosure agreement, or paying an extortionist is not a crime and I question if the prosecution's alleged motive for that payment has, as it required to be in a criminal case), proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Concealing facts or accusations from your wife and your family, or the voters and the remaining public may, or may not be reprehensible, but it's generally not a crime. Influencing voters, (i.e. political campaigning) is certainly not a crime. Respectfully, Supposn

Falsifying business records is a crime.

2023 New York Laws :: PEN - Penal :: Part 3 - Specific Offenses :: Title K - Offenses Involving Fraud :: Article 175 - Offenses Involving False Written Statements :: 175.10 - Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

 

[Supposn]

Trumpwas found guilty of 34 counts for causing fraudulent business records for the purpose of enabling or concealing another crime. He was not indicted for paying “hush money” or obtaining better mortgage loan agreements.

But I forgot the accusation of “hush money” payment can be considered as (in-kind) payment, (i.e. payment in other than currency or other usual forms of payment) for the purpose of contributing greater than the permissible value of contributions to a federal election campaign. There are precedencies for prosecutions based upon those federal statutes. I suppose based upon that underlying crime would be sustained against an appeal based upon selective prosecution.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

How did Trump conceal anything, when he wrote checks?

Elektra, Trump had the hush money paid from his trust's account, and it was entered in the books as payment to an attorney for legal services, rather than as compensation for an individual's agreement of non-disclosure; that was the fraudulent business documentation.

NY State presented testimony attesting supporting the motive or purpose of that agreement was to influence 2024 general election voters. NY State contended this was effectively in-kind, (i.e. other than cash) payment of what was effectively a federal election campaign contribution that exceeded the maximum legally permitted value of such a contribution.

That was the underlying crime enabled or concealed by the crime of causing fraudulent business documentation. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

Elektra, Trump had the hush money

There is no such thing as hush money. If you think there is, show us the law that defines hush money. Show us one other person charged with hush money.

 

[Supposn]

There is no such thing as hush money. If you think there is, show us the law that defines hush money. Show us one other person charged with hush money.

Elektra, "hush-money” was the headline word the media chose to use when referring to compensating an individual for signing a non-disclosure agreement.
A jury accepted prosecution's evidence and testimony of motives for fraudulent descriptions of the payments “marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization”. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

Elektra, "hush-money” was the headline word the media chose to use when referring to compensating an individual for signing a non-disclosure agreement.

Hush-money, a headline designed to demonize a non-criminal act. Thank you.

 

[elektra]

A jury accepted prosecution's evidence and testimony of motives for fraudulent descriptions of the payments “marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization”.

What was the motive?

 

[Supposn]

elektra

What was the motive?

What was the motive?

Elektra, paymentof “hush money” was considered as payment (in-kind), for the purpose of contributing payments exceeding the then current permissible maximum value of contributions to a federal election campaign. that's a motive and a crime that's likely to survive any appeal of the NY State's criminal trial verdict against Trump. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

elektra


Elektra, paymentof “hush money” was considered as payment (in-kind), for the purpose of contributing payments exceeding the then current permissible maximum value of contributions to a federal election campaign. that's a motive and a crime that's likely to survive any appeal of the NY State's criminal trial verdict against Trump. Respectfully, Supposn

Oh, you are claiming non-disclosure agreements are a violation of Federal Election Campaign laws. Why was Trump not charged at the Federal level?

States can not prosecute Federal crimes and the State level.

Very good supposn established that the State of New York made up a crime.

 

[Supposn]

Oh, you are claiming non-disclosure agreements are a violation of Federal Election Campaign laws. Why was Trump not charged at the Federal level?

States can not prosecute Federal crimes and the State level.

Very good supposn established that the State of New York made up a crime.

Elektra, when I was discussing non-disclosure agreements, I hadn't considered our federal election laws. Simply paying for a legal agreement is not a crime. But Trump overpaid beyond the maximum permitted contributions to a federal political candidate's election campaign was illegal.

Each of the 34 counts' wordings within NY State's indictment of Donald Trump were worded as, “... with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, … marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization”.

Each 34 counts' wordings differed only to the extent of their differing specifics such as types and dates of each item and any specifics as to date and page of entry within the Trust's records. It was not legally necessary that the unspecified crime be a NY State crime.

NY State presented testimony and evidence to the satisfaction of the jury, that Trump caused fraudulent entries, which enabled and concealed another crime. The motive for falsifying business records was to enable or conceal an underlying crime. the illegal excessive “in-kind” payment as effectively a contribution for the benefit of a candidate within a political election. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

Elektra, when I was discussing non-disclosure agreements, I hadn't considered our federal election laws. Simply paying for a legal agreement is not a crime. But Trump overpaid beyond the maximum permitted contributions to a federal political candidate's election campaign was illegal.

You are speaking of Federal Election Laws. The Federal Election Commission investigated this and stated that no violation occurred.

 

[Supposn]

You are speaking of Federal Election Laws. The Federal Election Commission investigated this and stated that no violation occurred.

Elecktra, I doubt that. However, if you have a link to whatever you consider as an authoritative or a credible source, please post it for all of us to read. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[elektra]

Elecktra, I doubt that. However, if you have a link to whatever you consider as an authoritative or a credible source, please post it for all of us to read. Respectfully, Supposn

Links do not prove or disprove the truth. They only show that you a partisan and biased.

You should give me a list of acceptable sites, cause as you know, you are ready to dismiss anything I present.

 

[Supposn]

... You should give me a list of acceptable sites, cause as you know, you are ready to dismiss anything I present.

Elektra, if you're ashamed to name your source of information, you better than anyone else knows what there is to be ashamed of. I don't intend to guess what you don't wish to divulge. Perhaps you've accepted an unconfirmed rumor to be in fact true? That's your secret.
Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Links do not prove or disprove the truth. They only show that you a partisan and biased.

You should give me a list of acceptable sites, cause as you know, you are ready to dismiss anything I present.

Elektra, you contend no links to a source is comparatively any more or any less authoritative and/or credible than any other source?
You also contend regardless of what source I choose to quote from, because it's my choice, the source's quoted assertions are all false assertions?

Its been said that thieves and liars believe everyone's a thief and a liar; but I suppose you don't believe that adage may apply to you?
Respectfully, Supposn