The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

[BigOrangeMojo]

Just wondering if any of y’all were on trial that had a judge that hated you, and for the prosecution. Had the DA office that campaigned if they won, they’d take you down. How many of you would think you were gonna have a fair trial?

The prosecution wanting to take you down doesn't mean the trial wasn't fair...

Trump still did the following

1. Bang a porn star with pregnant wife at home

2. Paid her off.

3. Orchestrated scheme to create fake paper trail to cover it up.


Let's not pretend he's completely innocent here and did nothing wrong...

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

No. Paula showed the media the check.View attachment 644873

Paying off isn't illegal. Faking a paper trail is...

 

[RavinDave]

Probably the last time he appears on CNN

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Paying off isn't illegal. Faking a paper trail is... as long as it can be proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that Trump was responsible for creating the paper trail. And also, that the intent for paying off was directly to help him win the election... and not, for example, to protect him and the Trump brand.

fify... as I believe you've said essentially the same thing in other posts iirc.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

fify... as I believe you've said essentially the same thing in other posts iirc.

I think pretty much anyone without MAGA bias knows there was falsification that was carried out by Trump's direct report with the knowledge of Trump....

I've long stated the other stuff regarding a second crime and intent is murkier but once again, Trump wasn't an innocent here..

 

[Carl Pickens]

And it’s CNN so Luther will undoubtedly believe this

 

[Carl Pickens]

Putin and Trump live rent free in your delusional head. Your infatuation with them is sort of weird.

It’s all because of her 83 cats stomping around on her kitchen counter after getting out of their overfilled litter box

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

I think pretty much anyone without MAGA bias knows there was falsification that was carried out by Trump's direct report with the knowledge of Trump....

I've long stated the other stuff regarding a second crime and intent is murkier but once again, Trump wasn't an innocent here..

I'm far from a MAGA, and there was plenty of evidence to show Trump's direct reports were involved in the "falsification", but perhaps I missed something. What proof was presented to show that Trump knew of the falsification. The closest I recall was Cohen's testimony about the phone call which was ludicrous and highly suspect at best.

 

[Septic]

I can deal with low gas prices and mean tweets unlike you who never criticizes the dumbass in office. You may claim you criticize Veggie slo Joe, but your butthurt of Trump is more obvious. Hell, you probably voted for Hillary too but won’t admit, I wouldn’t either. But muh Trump, it’s all you got.

I remember when my world was black or white and only dichotomies of choice existed.

Then I turned seven.

I make no apologies for for my disdain for that pile of human trash. I find your "with us or against us" mentality and those that think your post was inspiring quite low IQ. I pity people who can't or otherwise refuse to grasp that there are some people who can believe both choices are poor. People like you who refuse to acknowledge that dogsh*t is just as unpalatabe as catsh*t. I kind of feel sad that you and your sychophantic ilk can't reconcile it.

The fact that you and turbo find fault with my take tells me I'm right where I should be.

 

[Sudden Impact]

I’ve googled the chit out of it and I can’t find any procedures a president must follow to declassify information. I know we have an expert (I think he was a double naught spy or something) on the subject lurking around here that claims the president must get approval from a committee or something but refuses to post anything backing it up.

@hog88 I did a quick search, found this for Public knowledge. It may not answer your questions directly but know that there are procedures no matter who declassifies. Plus there are regulations and procedures that will not be disclosed to the public because they do not have a need to know.
A declassified document may lay dormant for 25 years. Another Key word is Public Interest?

We have no idea what Trump had in his possession or the Contents. The NJ tape and the media indicated that he had an OPLAN with potential Nuclear Capabilities' of foreign govts. The public may never know and appears that the govt has a clue but I would be willing to bet that they don't know for sure. At present, the only public interest for knowing is the election, but the compromise of classified information outweighs the election. So we will get out of this what we are fed by the govt and the court system.

Here is a government release, notice the date. It has no "fine print" and there is "fine Print" but not printed. This is generic and there are more details to it than this but you can draw a picture.
Key words: "25 years, Public Interest, Compromise, Risks to National Security" + the fine print the American People are not privy to.
For example, the American People have no need to know an OPLAN, but a terrorist or opposing force would pay huge $$$$$ for it. So until we know which we may never know the documents Trump possessed, it is hard to pass judgement.
I sure hope those that failed the chain of custody for those documents were relieved of their duties.

Loading…

crsreports.congress.gov

Bottom Line: Some appear to think that Trump could declassify a document, take it home with him because of the PRA and without a process of declassification. He cannot.

Take it for what it is worth. If the government had done the proper procedures then this would never have happened to begin with. Second, notice the date of document August 2023, these procedures have been around for several years this was a generic release of information to validate the confusion. Notice Public Interest.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

I'm far from a MAGA, and there was plenty of evidence to show Trump's direct reports were involved in the "falsification", but perhaps I missed something. What proof was presented to show that Trump knew of the falsification. The closest I recall was Cohen's testimony about the phone call which was ludicrous and highly suspect at best.

Here is what was testified to:

Trump signed the checks that stated retainer (I'll give him a pass here since he might have blown through it)

Trump reviewed all invoiced over 10K per Controller

Trump tweeted multiple times about the reimbursement in 2018

Cohen met with Trump at White House to discuss reimbursement. A few days later the first two invoices were approved and checks signed. While the defense hit Cohen's credibility big time, they passed on hitting on contents of this meeting..

So, as a corporate officer, you have a guy approved and signed two dozen invoices/checks from an accounting scheme set up by his direct report, a very close working relationship with this direct report per multiple witnesses testimony, he knew of reimbursement (per tweets), he had a documented meeting in the White House with Cohen to discuss payment, testimony that he was notoriously vigilant in reviewing invoices/checks. It obviously wasn't introduced at this trial but a history of creating false income statements.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Here is what was testified to:

Trump signed the checks that stated retainer (I'll give him a pass here since he might have blown through it)

Trump reviewed all invoiced over 10K per Controller

Trump tweeted multiple times about the reimbursement in 2018

Cohen met with Trump at White House to discuss reimbursement. A few days later the first two invoices were approved and checks signed. While the defense hit Cohen's credibility big time, they passed on hitting on contents of this meeting..

So, as a corporate officer, you have a guy approved and signed two dozen invoices/checks from an accounting scheme set up by his direct report, a very close working relationship with this direct report per multiple witnesses testimony, he knew of reimbursement (per tweets), he had a documented meeting in the White House with Cohen to discuss payment, testimony that he was notoriously vigilant in reviewing invoices/checks. It obviously wasn't introduced at this trial but a history of creating false income statements.

Sorry... I agree with pretty much everything you've stated, but I'm still not making a direct connection. As a president/ceo I can approve all types of payments and endorse numerous checks, but that doesn't mean (or prove) that I oversee how those payments get applied from an accounting perspective.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Sorry... I agree with pretty much everything you've stated, but I'm still not making a direct connection. As a president/ceo I can approve all types of payments and endorse numerous checks, but that doesn't mean (or prove) that I oversee how those payments get applied from an accounting perspective.

It's not the accounting perspective but did Trump know he approved 2 dozen checks/invoices for a transaction that did not exist in reality (the retainer agreement) or was he aware of this "retainer" arrangement?

I can't suspend that much belief that he wasn't aware of it the two dozen times he approved something for "retainer" for a guy no longer doing legal services for him. Not with how everyone testified how he scrutinized every check/large invoice. Not with his known past of stiffing vendors.

This case should have never been brought and it's a clear political persecution but my point all along is Trump isn't completely innocent here either (of at least a misdemeanor)

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

It's not the accounting perspective but did Trump know he approved 2 dozen checks/invoices for a transaction that did not exist in reality (the retainer agreement) or was he aware of this "retainer" arrangement?

I can't suspend that much belief that he wasn't aware of it the two dozen times he approved something for "retainer" for a guy no longer doing legal services for him. Not with how everyone testified how he scrutinized every check/large invoice. Not with his known past of stiffing vendors.

This case should have never been brought and it's a clear political persecution but my point all along is Trump isn't completely innocent here either (of at least a misdemeanor)

I guess if it's a question, then it's not proof (even though it may be likely). And completely agree with your last sentence... should not (and typically would not) have been brought to trial, and Trump is guilty of many things.

 

[Gandalf]

Here is what was testified to:

Trump signed the checks that stated retainer (I'll give him a pass here since he might have blown through it)

Trump reviewed all invoiced over 10K per Controller

Trump tweeted multiple times about the reimbursement in 2018

Cohen met with Trump at White House to discuss reimbursement. A few days later the first two invoices were approved and checks signed. While the defense hit Cohen's credibility big time, they passed on hitting on contents of this meeting..

So, as a corporate officer, you have a guy approved and signed two dozen invoices/checks from an accounting scheme set up by his direct report, a very close working relationship with this direct report per multiple witnesses testimony, he knew of reimbursement (per tweets), he had a documented meeting in the White House with Cohen to discuss payment, testimony that he was notoriously vigilant in reviewing invoices/checks. It obviously wasn't introduced at this trial but a history of creating false income statements.

I am pretty sure that Trump approved the payments, though more likely in principle. It also seems reasonable that Cohen would have broken up the payment so it didnt seem like a lump sum payout to anyone but rather just amortize it over a year + his legal fees. The accountant marked them as legal expenses without any input from Trump because that was the category they had.

The problem however, is that none of that is really illegal. Because its designed to hide it from the press or others. This court case was saying he was trying to hide it from the FEC or trying to influence the election - but IIRC these payments were made AFTER the election, as you mention Cohen is going to the white house trying to get paid. If payments are happening AFTER the election, how can the "scheme" be to influence the election (which is one of the 3 "under crimes" they tried to infer)?

Because basically, the Dems were trying to say that if Trump hadnt broken up his NDA payoff as part of a retainer agreement for legal services with Cohen, this information would have come out and he would never have gotten elected. Which is idiotic - because most of the actions took place AFTER the election.

Point is, yes I think he tried to hide it but sleeping with a porn star, paying her for silence via an NDA and then trying to hide that from people is not illegal.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Uh oh; the Biden Campaign just used an unlicensed Elmo costumed character at their Philly rally!!!!!
Isn’t that a crime in support of a campaign?
When can we expect the indictment, trial, and conviction?
“No one is above the law”

Sesame Street disavows Elmo appearance at Biden campaign event

A costumed version of the 'Sesame Street' star danced in a drum line before Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke Wednesday.

thenationaldesk.com

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

I can deal with low gas prices and mean tweets unlike you who never criticizes the dumbass in office. You may claim you criticize Veggie slo Joe, but your butthurt of Trump is more obvious. Hell, you probably voted for Hillary too but won’t admit, I wouldn’t either. But muh Trump, it’s all you got.

Most people who actually like Trump are just like him: petty, thin skinned, immature and grade A poons.

 

[Sudden Impact]

Sorry... I agree with pretty much everything you've stated, but I'm still not making a direct connection. As a president/ceo I can approve all types of payments and endorse numerous checks, but that doesn't mean (or prove) that I oversee how those payments get applied from an accounting perspective.

When you sign them you should ask, to not ask,you accept accountability and responsibility for the payment of those funds. Scribbling a payment plan and accounting for taxes who give a person a reason to believe one knew.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

When you sign them you should ask, to not ask,you accept accountability and responsibility for the payment of those funds. Scribbling a payment plan and accounting for taxes who give a person a reason to believe one knew.

I'm sorry, but's that's a bit ridiculous... both in principle and practice. Accountants are hired because they know general and specific (e.g. tax) laws, and stay up to date on any changes to said laws, and therefore are the ones who are mostly held accountable (unless they can prove that someone directed/forced them to apply certain expenditures, etc. a certain way). If a president/ceo knows more about accounting and finance than the people who work in those departments, then they made a bad hire.

 

[AirVol]

Most people who actually like Trump are just like him: petty, thin skinned, immature and grade A poons.

Rather be like him than that worthless POS crooked veggie. You voting for him again?

 

[Sudden Impact]

I'm sorry, but's that's a bit ridiculous... both in principle and practice. Accountants are hired because they know general and specific (e.g. tax) laws, and stay up to date on any changes to said laws, and therefore are the ones who are mostly held accountable (unless they can prove that someone directed/forced them to apply certain expenditures, etc. a certain way). If a president/ceo knows more about accounting and finance than the people who work in those departments, then they made a bad hire.

You are the CEO…I guess you laid in wait For a response. As a CEO you should know enough about every area to avoid a bankruptcy, a lawsuit, or prison. Accountability and Responsibility. You rubber stamp a check of a NDA for $430,000 common sense tells me a CEO will know its category because that not a normal day to day expenditure. Especially when you are the President of the US and you know the media, others are always digging around in your financials. Trump was to arrogant to worry about it and did not think this whole thing would ever come to light. It did and he could not prevent it.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Rather be like him than that worthless POS crooked veggie. You voting for him again?

Didn't vote for him in 2020. It must be tiring for you always being one of the dumber guys in the room

 

[Sudden Impact]

Agre

I am pretty sure that Trump approved the payments, though more likely in principle. It also seems reasonable that Cohen would have broken up the payment so it didnt seem like a lump sum payout to anyone but rather just amortize it over a year + his legal fees. The accountant marked them as legal expenses without any input from Trump because that was the category they had.

The problem however, is that none of that is really illegal. Because its designed to hide it from the press or others. This court case was saying he was trying to hide it from the FEC or trying to influence the election - but IIRC these payments were made AFTER the election, as you mention Cohen is going to the white house trying to get paid. If payments are happening AFTER the election, how can the "scheme" be to influence the election (which is one of the 3 "under crimes" they tried to infer)?

Because basically, the Dems were trying to say that if Trump hadnt broken up his NDA payoff as part of a retainer agreement for legal services with Cohen, this information would have come out and he would never have gotten elected. Which is idiotic - because most of the actions took place AFTER the election.

Point is, yes I think he tried to hide it but sleeping with a porn star, paying her for silence via an NDA and then trying to hide that from people is not illegal.

Agree, as it is like splitting a hair. Always has been a weak case, the Dems needed a victory here and got one for the time being. Weak case should have been icing after the others on the cake after the others but it was not and the other cases may or may not ever be tried. Exceptions -- AZ and possibly Michigan but doubtful before the election.

 

[RockyTop85]

Paying off isn't illegal. Faking a paper trail is...

In New York.

 

[rekinhavoc]

If Trump goes to prison after guilty verdict, Secret Service would have to go with him

The Secret Service could soon face a massive logistical challenge with a jailed former President Trump if he is sentenced to prison time.

www.foxnews.com

"Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, introduced the Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable (DISGRACED) Former Protectees Act."

Clowns are doubling down.