Post Any Evidence you are Aware of that Donald Trump Falsified Business Records to Conceal a Crime

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let's keep this thread clean, folks.

If you don't know of evidence that Donald Trump falsified business records to conceal a crime, move along to another thread.

Thanks.

The ultimate sealion thread.

No, none of us have access to the prosecution's documentary evidence. What we have are statements of fact in the indictment. Most of which have already been proven true in a prior trial. These statements of fact that are based on documents and correspondence that the prosecution says they will present to the jury.

So we know of the evidence from the prior trial and the statements of fact in the indictment.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The ultimate sealion thread.

No one was forced to post on this thread, nor did I jump into a thread and ask questions.

I started the thread to ask a question and specifically requested that it not be trolled by people who want to argue but not admit that they don't know what the evidence is.

No, none of us have access to the prosecution's documentary evidence. What we have are statements of fact in the indictment. Most of which have already been proven true in a prior trial. These statements of fact that are based on documents and correspondence that the prosecution says they will present to the jury.

So we know of the evidence from the prior trial and the statements of fact in the indictment.

To provide evidence to support the charges someone will have to say that they saw Trump make false entries into a business record, or that Trump ordered them to make those false entries.

Has someone done that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No one was forced to post on this thread, nor did I jump into a thread and ask questions.

I started the thread to ask a question and specifically requested that it not be trolled by people who want to argue but not admit that they don't know what the evidence is.

To provide evidence to support the charges someone will have to say that they saw Trump make false entries into a business record, or that Trump ordered them to make those false entries.

Has someone done that?

No they don't. That's stupid. Normal people's minds aren't handicapped by cult fantasies of corrupt prosecutors and judges. That's your mental handicap to live with.

 

[dudmuck]

That anyone knows of. Do you really think anything goes out without Hillary knowing about it? Of course not. Here is another example of how with present day Democrats, the Buck doesn’t stop here. They take credit for anything that isn’t theirs and never own up on the things that they caused.

that would be like saying Trump is responsible for whatever any of his supporters say.
You all have your freedom to do or say whatever, and it wont be attributed to Trump, just because you support Trump.

Back in 2008, a few Clinton fans setup an Obama birther conspiracy. It doesnt mean that Hillary authorized it or had anything to do with it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The Defense will provide that theory
The jury will have to decide whether they believe Trump in saying he had nothing to do with it and never had sex with Stormy Daniels anyway or they believe Cohen in what Trump told him he wanted done to cover this up.

Stay tuned

There will be at least some Trump supporters on the jury, unless they were sytematically excluded. If one of them believes Trump over Cohen and holds out, no conviction.

There won't be a singler Michael Cohen supporter anywhere in the courtroom, unless his mom comes to watch.

 

[rightwinger]

There will be at least some Trump supporters on the jury, unless they were sytematically excluded. If one of them believes Trump over Cohen and holds out, no conviction.

There won't be a singler Michael Cohen supporter anywhere in the courtroom, unless his mom comes to watch.

I think Michael Cohen will be more persuasive than Trump’

 

[Seymour Flops]

the feds rejected something a state prosecutor did? Why are the feds getting involved in a state case? i dont think such a thing happened.

The feds rejected a campaign finance violation charge against Trump. They didn't get involved in the state case, Bragg is supposedly using a non-existent federal crime to enhance his state charge.

Bragg supposedly will claim that the allegedly falsified records were intended to cover up a campaign law violation by Trump. That's according to speculation by the Trump-deranged, Bragg has not announced that or any other legal theory to support his charges.

I know of no other case in which an alleged federal crime that the feds declined to charge was included as an underlying crime. It's really a bizarre stretch by Bragg to make the case into alleged felonies and beat the statute of limitations that was allowed to expire on the falsification of records charges.

the indictment from Bragg was a full year ago, you can read it here. Obviously they wouldnt have raised such an indictment if the evidence wasnt sufficient, otherwise Trumps lawyers would have an easy job. Youre just fantasizing that this is weak case.

They do have an easy case.

They just have to ask the question I posted in this OP of every anti-Trump witness who testifies.

The Democrats know they won't win this one. Their "victory," is forcing Trump to sit in the courtroom every weekday during his campaign.

 

[Care4all]

Oh horseshit. What case was ever presented to any grand jury against Shrillary? Against Potato? Against Pelousy?

Prosecutors never had enough evidence to bring before a grand jury.... or they would have, no?

 

[BackAgain]

Prosecutors never had enough evidence to bring before a grand jury.... or they would have, no?

Of course not. Don’t be silly.

They had plenty. They made a choice. The protected folks were kept protected.

 

[dudmuck]

The feds rejected a campaign finance violation charge against Trump. They didn't get involved in the state case, Bragg is supposedly using a non-existent federal crime to enhance his state charge.

Bragg supposedly will claim that the allegedly falsified records were intended to cover up a campaign law violation by Trump. That's according to speculation by the Trump-deranged, Bragg has not announced that or any other legal theory to support his charges.

I know of no other case in which an alleged federal crime that the feds declined to charge was included as an underlying crime. It's really a bizarre stretch by Bragg to make the case into alleged felonies and beat the statute of limitations that was allowed to expire on the falsification of records charges.

They do have an easy case.

They just have to ask the question I posted in this OP of every anti-Trump witness who testifies.

The Democrats know they won't win this one. Their "victory," is forcing Trump to sit in the courtroom every weekday during his campaign.

the question as to why the feds declined to charge "individual 1" are not stated by the feds. The feds never need to say why they decline to charge. This was asked back in 2019, after they charged Michael Cohen. But the reason individual 1 wasnt charged for this appears to be the same reason Mueller didnt indict, because of the opinion to not indict a sitting president. This means the crime is still there, its just a non-indicted crime.

 

[Seymour Flops]

the question as to why the feds declined to charge "individual 1" are not stated by the feds. The feds never need to say why they decline to charge. This was asked back in 2019, after they charged Michael Cohen. But the reason individual 1 wasnt charged for this appears to be the same reason Mueller didnt indict, because of the opinion to not indict a sitting president. This means the crime is still there, its just a non-indicted crime.

Trump stopped being a sitting president in Hanuary of 2021. If they could have indicted him they would have. If not then, then, certainly during last year’s election indictment frenzy.

 

[para bellum]

the question as to why the feds declined to charge "individual 1" are not stated by the feds. The feds never need to say why they decline to charge. This was asked back in 2019, after they charged Michael Cohen. But the reason individual 1 wasnt charged for this appears to be the same reason Mueller didnt indict, because of the opinion to not indict a sitting president. This means the crime is still there, its just a non-indicted crime.

Individual-1 is Trump, and he can use as much of his personal funds on his campaign as he chooses. His companies and the trust are included in his personal funds.

The payments to Cohen came from the DJT Trust and his personal checking account.

If you want to criminalize NDA's for reputational protection, start with the US Congress. They have a special fund to payoff interns and aides.

I don't even know what the "falsification" was. It was recording his payments to his attorney as "legal expenses" in the accounting system?

 

[Cougarbear]

that would be like saying Trump is responsible for whatever any of his supporters say.
You all have your freedom to do or say whatever, and it wont be attributed to Trump, just because you support Trump.

Back in 2008, a few Clinton fans setup an Obama birther conspiracy. It doesnt mean that Hillary authorized it or had anything to do with it.

Ummm…no. But, if his press secretary and campaign leaders say something then yes, the Buck stops there with him. If I say something then it may or may not be true and he has no obligation to take credit. The thing is, for a long time in political days she didn’t condemn it. She waited to see how it played out.

 

[dudmuck]

Ummm…no. But, if his press secretary and campaign leaders say something then yes, the Buck stops there with him. If I say something then it may or may not be true and he has no obligation to take credit. The thing is, for a long time in political days she didn’t condemn it. She waited to see how it played out.

The original assertion was that Hillary started the birther rumor, but now you're using "if" hypotheticals. Yes, if hillary's campaign leaders started some birther nonsense, it would reflect on Hillary as if she authorized it. But this never happened, only birther nonsense from few of her supporters with nothing about it coming from hillarys campaign or herself.

 

[Cougarbear]

The original assertion was that Hillary started the birther rumor, but now you're using "if" hypotheticals. Yes, if hillary's campaign leaders started some birther nonsense, it would reflect on Hillary as if she authorized it. But this never happened, only birther nonsense from few of her supporters with nothing about it coming from hillarys campaign or herself.

Now you are trying to re-write history. Pretty typical on the left. Her campaign spewed it. Own it. But you and her won’t. Just like she denies losing the election. She says she didn’t and then she says she did but it was everyone else’s fault. Trump stole it. Just like Gore with Bush.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think Michael Cohen will be more persuasive than Trump’

But ultimately, the falsified records, the signed checks, and the correspondence between the two men --

I.E., the mountain of documentary evidence that the Super Sealion OP pretends not to know about --

Will sink the Donald.

 

[rightwinger]

Now you are trying to re-write history. Pretty typical on the left. Her campaign spewed it. Own it. But you and her won’t. Just like she denies losing the election. She says she didn’t and then she says she did but it was everyone else’s fault. Trump stole it. Just like Gore with Bush.

You are just making shit up

Neither Hillary nor her campaign embraced Bitherism

That was Trump

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Her campaign spewed it.

And then the racist teabgaggers and their orange Birfer in Chief ran with it.

We know. Where are you getting confused?

 

[leftwinger]

Page one of Obamas biography book said “Born in Kenya”. Yet leftist scum chirp?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Page one of Obamas biography book said “Born in Kenya”. Yet leftist scum chirp?

That's not why you racist puke birfers went on a yearslong crusade.