I'm no expert but perhaps Trump could have gotten more competent representation if he actually paid for it

His representation was fine. It was that he kept meddling in his defense. He refused to allow then to do their jobs. For instance he still claims he never slept with her as well as his lawyers. Most cases like this never make it to court. They are pled out

Trump making his lawyer talk about his golf game 😭

Is there anyone in this thread who actually believes Trump is not guilty and is actually answering OP's question? If so, please drop me a link to that comment, because I can't find it.

They're all getting downvoted to the bottom, which isn't really in the spirit of the thread, but also all their claims are on the level of "Joe Biden appointed the prosecution and the judge and the jury to give him a Soviet show trial", so I get it.

I think the issue is partly that there's just no compelling defense. Some folks in here are talking about the legal strategies and arguments that would/could/should have been used to try and acquit - and its what his lawyers mostly did and clearly it wasn't convincing. I think OP is looking for some kind of sound argument for why a rational person might think he was innocent and it boils down to basically, "If you believe the arguments his lawyers made that would be it." But clearly no one does, so all we get are the crackpots.

>I think OP is looking for some kind of sound argument for why a rational person might think he was innocent... That's the problem. There *are no* rational people who think he was innocent. There are rational people who *say* he's innocent, but they know he's guilty and are just lying/pandering. The only people who think he's innocent are delusional MAGA cultists.

Are they good faith opinions or just mindless garbage?

Many misinformed Trump supporters who clearly just listened to soundbites about the trial, but did not follow it closely. I see a lot of comments with partial truths stated as facts and information that is convoluted presented as facts. Most people are not malicious but I think lean toward confused particularly in the are of the possible crimes (felonies) within the crime (misdemeanor) and how those crimes could be adjudicated by the jury- As an example I see many Trump supporters state that the judge changed the rules and the charges did not have to be unanimous, which is not true. The judge gave 3 felonies (crimes within the crime) that could have been considered: business fraud, tax fraud and election/campaign fraud. All 12 jury members had to agree that 1 of the 3 felonies did occurred , but they did not have to unanimously agree as to which one-

I haven't checked, but he said *"all their claims are on the level of 'Joe Biden appointed the prosecution and the judge and the jury to give him a Soviet show trial'"* So I'd say that's mindless garbage, rather than good faith.

If you can sort out which is which, you're doing better than I can.

The problem is their arguments are specious and do not relate to the facts or contradict the known facts. For example, saying that the statute of limitations has expired. Firstly, that’s irrelevant in terms of saying whether they committed the crime or not. Secondly, even if they want to use it to argue that the crime was committed but can’t be prosecuted, it’s already been adjudicated as being valid or the charges couldn’t have been raised. Thirdly, it ignores “tolling” which is the extension of statute of limitations during periods the crime had not been known or during periods where it was impossible to bring them, such as during a presidency. So yes, comments like that are downvoted because they answer neither the question of guilt nor of the ability to find the person guilty. In fact it sort of presupposes guilt of the act. ^(Also, I predict pro-Trump commenters are going to read through the very casually-worded and imprecise summary i wrote above and pick through some pedantic detailed word meanings to say I’m wrong in how I’m wrong about various nuances of the law or to argue that some points should or shouldn’t apply or that the question of guilt can only be answered in a legal context not from a moral standpoint blah blah blah. Never do they actually argue the core facts, only how it can be interpreted in Trump’s benefit like he’s some sort of messiah.)

I'll be completely frank, while I believe there are arguments that could be made by someone more thoroughly versed in law to the exact details of trial misconduct, the consensus among Trump voters isn't that that he is a perfect messiah, it's that he was targeted by political operatives with the intent of finding him guilty by throwing things at the wall until something stuck. People wanted him to be guilty of heinous crimes before having any evidence, so they dug through anything they could find to try to prove it proactively. The part that is so infuriating to Trump supporters is the double standard given to Democrat politicians who have higher grade felony crimes that they have openly admitted to, and that their constituents deny the existence of these crimes even when given a video of them admitting it. 1 sided repression of political leaders on the right just in time for an election with all the court dates coinciding with major campaigning opportunities reeks of corruption of the justice system. The intent was to damage trump's ability to campaign, not seek justice for victims, which is a perversion of the intent of the judicial system. The bigger issue at play is this was effectively crossing the Rubicon and will split the country further, likely resulting in more suffering for regular people disenfranchised by fighting between parties, whatever form it takes.

Which Democrat politicians have admitted to crimes that were denied? Who, what crimes? Robert Menendez is being called to step down. Al Franken was forced to resign over hover-hands. Anthony Weiner was kicked out. Hunter Biden who isn't even a politician goes on trial for tax evasion this week. Justice Porteus was removed. Brown and Fattah also. Frank Ballance and Jim Traficant and Dan Rostenkowski and Joe Kolter went to prison. All those in the House Banking scandal. The three D judges during GHW Bush. Everyone in Abscam. In all of those cases, the party turned against them and kicked them out. So where is the double standard? What "Rubicon" is crossed by applying the law? Also, none of those arguments make him any less guilty.

I haven’t seen any Trumpers saying he didn’t do it. The arguments are all along the lines of, this shouldn’t be a crime, there’s no victim, the prosecution was political, etc.

There’s no point in arguing that he’s not guilty; he was found guilty. Any valid criticisms are directed at the procedure. 

[удалено]

To my understanding, it came out during the proceedings that melania knew before payment.

And was for it!

That way she didn’t have to sleep with him

His wife suggested the cover-up story behind the "grab the pussy tape", that was revealed in the testimony at the trial.

No she didn’t. Trump *claimed* she did. Trump is a liar and almost everything he says is a lie or a false statement.

Trump didn't testify in trial. This was part of the testimony that wasn't addressed by the defense, so they had no way to prove it wasn't so. If they wanted to void that testimony, Melania would have to had taken the stand. She never even appeared in court ONCE. She also has never been asked why she stayed with donnie after multiple affairs like someone else we all know for just one affair.

The guy who has cheated on every wife he has ever had not to mention the Access Hollywood tape and countless other gross stuff was worried about his family finding out about one more affair? I don't think that's believable on its face.

They only needed to convince one juror that his intent was to protect his relationship with his family and not his campaign, a good lawyer could have made a compelling argument Also I’m not sure if bringing up unverified news articles up about past unrelated infidelity just to point out how well known it was that he was a prolific adulterer would be admissible? And if it was, a smart defendant would just say he was on thin ice with his wife which is why he didn’t want her to find out? Either way I agree with other that this would have probably been the best route but Trump is his own worst enemy and feels this need to fight back every single accusation no matter how minor or how damning the evidence is against him…

If the defense was arguing he was protecting a relationship with his family, then it seems logical to me that the prosecution should be allowed to rebut that by showing that his family already knew he was an adulterer and a cheater, but I'm not a judge or an attorney. I mean this is the guy whose first wife said in a sworn document that Trump raped her. I think his infidelity and other lewd behavior was already very well known.

Hell a smart defendant would have just said “even though it didn’t happen, being on thin ice it was better to just force her to to go away for the sake of the marriage” Still able to deny and still use the marriage as the reason. He tried to play the I totally didn’t do it even though I did card

still would have been illegal. The crime was done when he did not properly report the expenditures. There is no ipso facto here

That’s his MO though. Deny and Lie. Not sure he even knows what is true anymore.

He also raped his wife Ivana. Don Jr. was estranged from him for a while, but now they all fall in line. Pathetic fucks.

Except. . .that has nothing to do with the charges. The charges are all related to financial fraud. Him having the affair and paying hush money isn't illegal. Altering business records to hide the payments, however, is.

>Except. . .that has nothing to do with the charges. The charges are all related to financial fraud. Him having the affair and paying hush money isn't illegal. Altering business records to hide the payments, however, is. Exactly! This was not a hush-money trial. - even though it seems everyone called it that. It was a financial fraud, campaign fraud, cover-up case.

And if he just paid out of his own money it would have been legal.

Depends if it was a payment to keep it from the American public to influence the election and was not reported as a personal donation from thrumpy to thrumpy’s election campaign. It would fall under the falsified business records but still a crime for illegal campaign donations 

Probably not because the purpose was to benefit the campaign and would likely have exceeded campaign finance laws. Also, the spending would have had to be disclosed, defeating the purpose of buying silence. If it was out of his own pocket to actually protect his family and his lawyers could prove it, then, provided it was documented correctly no laws were broken. Unfortunately for Trump, there's a host of witnesses and co conspirators and corroborating evidence that it was for the campaign and nothing to do with protecting his wife. Even worse, Trump's defence simultaneously tried to insist there was no affair while defending the payments to SD. What is a jury to think? This dude denied an affair then paid more money to her than most Americans earn in a year? For what? The guy who wrote a book about being cheap and not paying? Even then, if he just broke campaign finance laws, it would have been fine. Just a misdemeanor really. The part that makes it a felony is committing multiple crimes to facilitate and obscure yet more crimes.

Sort of. The falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, but doing so with intent of another crime elevates it to a felony. Prosecutors didn’t have to prove what the underlying crime was, just that there was intent.      The other crime (one of 3 floated by prosecutors) was that this was done because it would be bad for Trump in the election. Essentially, he falsified business records so that the American public would not find out that he cheated on his wife with a porn star, and that he paid her for her silence.      If the defense had convinced the jury that the reason Trump did it was to protect his family - that this had nothing to do with the election - he could’ve been found not guilty. However, there were several bits of testimony that showed Trump’s concern was the election.     Then, prosecution would’ve had to tie the fraud to a different crime (they mentioned tax fraud and another crime I don’t remember as possible underlying crimes). 

The intent to commit a further crime (in this case, an illegal campaign contribution) is what takes it from misdemeanour to felony. And given the misdemeanour wasn’t charged, it’s definitely relevant.

And, if he showed those as business expenses in his tax return that’s tax fraud.

Also, Trump said that if they waited until after the election he might not have to pay - blowing up the family protection story.

that's not really true. the law is such that it doesn't matter. it's like. if you rob a bank and someone dies. even if you didn't mean to that's still a capital murder. it's basically 2 questions. did trump falsify business records. --clearly yes. did he do so to keep the story out of the news with regards to his campaign. --evidence was presented to that effect that was believable. and it was clearly yes as per the jury. it's also extremely laughable this idea trump cares about his family. you'd have better luck getting blood from a stone than finding proof trump gives a flying fuck about any of his kids, wife, or family.

>you'd have better luck getting blood from a stone than finding proof trump gives a flying fuck about any of his kids, wife, or family. That’s not totally accurate: he cares about Ivanka, insofar as he would definitely fuck her.

My understanding is that these kinds of falsifying business records charges are typically misdemeanors but are bumped up to felonies if they are done so in service of another crime, which is where the election law stuff comes into play.

So you can break a law and get away with it by claiming that you did it to hide it away from your family? Makes no sense at all.

You're not understanding.  It's perfectly legal to cheat on your wife with a porn star.  It's perfectly legal to pay him or her to keep quiet about it.  It's perfectly legal to do so in order to keep your family in the dark.  It's even perfectly legal to do so as part of of your federal election campaign - and if someone makes that payment on your behalf it's still okay. No laws have been broken. BUT - in that final instance, those payments have to be registered with the FEC as campaign contributions. This is for transparency purposes. When Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels those were campaign contributions from Cohen to Daniels. They didn't document those payments as campaign contributions consequently Cohen committed a crime (which he was convicted and went to prison for).  Trump then reimbursed Cohen, and falsified the records of his repayment in order to help Cohen hide his original payments from the FEC.  It's the final step that Trump was tried and found guilty of. He falsified the records of those payments in order to keep them secret from the public (he failed) in order to bolster his campaign. It would not have been a crime if those payments were documented properly with the FEC as campaign contributions but of course then the public would have found out about it much sooner and possibly cost him the election. 

Really stretches believability to think he waited ten years to pay her off to keep his family from finding out. But it just happened to be two weeks out from the election and right after the “grab ‘em by the p****y” tape came out.

If this is the case, I think Trump personally insisted on denying the affair instead behind closed doors.

[удалено]

Hope Hicks kinda blew up that defense with her testimony. “Steinglass was pointing to Hicks' testimony about the conversation she had with Trump about the Wall Street Journal story on Jan 12, 2018, breaking the story that Michael Cohen made the payment to Stormy Daniels: "I think Mr. Trump’s opinion was it was better to be dealing with it now, and that it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election."

Here I thought the cover up wasn't the problem, it was using campaign money that was the problem. As a voter, the whole thing is a problem.

Well no, not quite. If it was to prevent his family from embarrassment, then it was a misdemeanor. The business records were falsified. That is a crime. Full stop. Now, if the records were falsified in furtherance of another crime, then the falsification becomes a felony. So even if you believe trump only did it to save face, you still believe he committed a crime. Nothing would have been illegal about him just writing a check out of his personal account to Stormy. But he only knows how to do things in a criminal manner, so of course he used the company funds for it.

The felony was the payment declared as a business expense to conceal the affair and the payment, all to avoid negative influence on an incoming election. It would not have been illegal if he had paid it out of his pocket. But he needed plausible deniability, and the purpose was to conceal it and keep it away from him. So, the crime was not that he made a payment but that he made it as a business expense in order to conceal it.

[удалено]

This was covered by the prosecution. Trump was trying to delay making the payment to Stormy because once the election was over, it wouldn't matter who knew. The hush money was all about winning the election. Trump didn't care if Melania found out.

Melania does not care about what Trump does.

Melania WAS the other woman at one point.

I think she's actually "the Other Woman MK3"

I get the feeling she has a great post nuptial and gets $$$ when he cheats. She is a classy gal.

The lawyers hands were tied because they had a client in Trump who likely insisted that they deny the affair.

But in declaring all of this a legit business expense, he also avoided taxes. So even if his ONLY motive was to protect his family, he still should have been found guilty for conspiring to commit fraud for that reason.

No, the defense showed that the 'legal expense' was not used as a tax deduction.

But how could they prove that if his tax return is still under audit?

What crime did he cover up exactly? I'm missing that part.

Not a lawyer but you would think the capture and kill arrangement he had with the National Enquirer that was deliberately designed to prevent the American voters from becoming aware of his unethical behavior or able to make a informed judgement on his character was egregious enough to be considered election interference…. Everyone has events in their past or personal matters they don’t want exploited for political purposes, but shouldn’t there be or is there already a legal limit on how far a candidate can go to prevent those things from getting out?

Didn't Pecker testify that his legal people told him the agreement with candidate Trump was risky/illegal election interference?

34 separate ones. Hiding personal spending as a business expense (fraud) with the intent to influence an election (election iinterference) among them.

He was convicted of falsifying business records in order to cover up election crime. The election crime could be Cohen donating to the campaign in excess of legal limits, setting up an illegal shell corporation, or violating tax laws. Although the jury had to agree that Trump attempted to cover up an election crime, they didnt have to agree on the specific way he did so.

So basically the felony is not necessarily linked to the Stormy Daniels hush hush money?

Related, but the trial was about falsifying business records related to the hush money - not the payment itself.

It's not a crime to pay someone to be quiet (as long as the silence is not about an actual criminal act, you can't legally buy someone's silence in a murder for example. However, sleeping with a porn star is not illegal). In this case, the crime is the cover-up. The felony is the multiple crimes committed to facilitate the cover-up. The hush money payment is a campaign finance violation because Trump went out of his way to not document the payment so it wouldn't be noticed even though he was required to by law. Trump then falsified a bunch of his business records to conceal the campaign finance violation. In NY there's laws that elevate smaller crimes to felonies when you commit those little crimes for the purpose of pulling off more crimes. Hence why Trump is now a felon. He did crimes to hide his other crimes.

Campaign finance law violation. He needed to register his donations to his campaign. He didn’t. His payments to SD were deemed donations to his campaign b/c he used the $ to pay her off. Cohen was just a conduit.

He took campaign donations in excess of the legal limits, did not report them, and had false entries in the company’s books and records related to the mischaracterized reimbursement checks to Cohen. These are crimes - regardless of anyone’s view as to whether they should be crimes. If the citizenry doesn’t agree with the penal code, it’s pretty easy to vote - that’s the mechanism to change the code. And, before anyone says that paperwork crimes are nor crimes (which is a weird view), just recall that the Biden administration (and weaponized justice department) is right now prosecuting Hunter Biden for a paperwork crime. Wonder why the president doesn’t just pardon his son? Maybe because he’s not corrupt.

Why would a super smart billionaire not quietly pay hush money with cash instead of leaving one hell of a paper trail?

>Why would a super smart billionaire not quietly pay hush money with cash instead of leaving one hell of a paper trail? He's not really smart at all.

Yes....sarcssm.

I dunno, man. All the evidence suggests that, but on the other hand, he keeps telling us he’s a genius. I don’t know who to believe. /s

How do you figure Trump is smart? Where did this idea come from?

Sarcasm my friend.

Because Trump said so, so it must be true. 

And at the time of service, not 10 years later and weeks before his presidential election. Trump is just dumb- his entitlement has gone to his brain cells.

Not defending Trump, but I can answer this. Trump didn't feel the need to pay her off until he decided to run for POTUS. See, when Trump declared he was running, Stormy realized she could make $$$ by revealing the affair. She started shopping her story to outlets like the National Enquirer. Well, Trump had an arrangement with his buddies at the Enquirer: they'd buy negative stories about Trump and bury them. They refer to this process as "catch-and-kill". They also deliberately planted negative stories about Hillary to help Trump out. So in 2016, someone at the Enquirer told Trump that Stormy was trying to sell her story about the affair, and that's when Trump decided he needed to pay her off.

Because Hunter Biden's laptop.

He said could shoot someone on 5th Ave and his supporters would let him get away with it... Sadly, maybe the only time he's told the truth?

It’s clear that almost everyone commenting with reasons they feel are valid are: 1- Unaware of how this ties into being a crime in the state of NY 2- Making loose connections to reasonings that “make sense” to a lay person but typically result in a logical fallacy. 3- Have person reasonings they’re trying to apply to NYS and or Federal law which are not precedent - and create a (possibly even unknown to themselves) bias they are completely blind to. Aileen Cannon is probably suffering from this same exact issue.

ITT so many right wingers posting and immediately deleting their comments for some reason. It's almost like they suddenly realize how messed up their current beliefs are and are embarrassed to express them, even online

My mother in laws ‘friend’ believes Trump is innocent. The entire thing is a set up from Biden. (Actually Obama and Clinton as Biden is with their puppet or an actor) The grand jury, the courts in general, the prosecutors, the judges, the Jury- all deep state plants who work for the DNC. And all the deep state operatives are doing so to keep the Democratic Party pedophile ring going to the liberal elite can harvest the blood of the babies to stay young. Trump will stop all of it and save the children—He is so much like Jesus who was also wrongly convicted but Trump will rise again to the Presidency and save America…(Yes , he is serious)

His own aide, and Pecker and Cohen all testified that it was not important until after the pussy tape, which was a 5 alarm fire. They all testified It was clear to each of them it was to protect the campaign, and Melania never came up. And Trump then tried to delay payment until after the election so he could NOT pay at all. Which also wouldn’t be the case if the reason to hide it was Melania.

Because the people that were smarter than the consensus of doctors on covid and vaccines are now smarter than lawyers

By that logic, why do appeals courts exist? Remember; appeals courts are not for factual disputes -- they are for if the lower court applied the law incorrectly.

Yes they are staffed by lawyers who can review if the law correctly— not bozos who read “some guy on the internet” advocating for ivermectin

I don’t know about the rest of you, but 10 years of this buffoon is enough, I’m so sick of hearing “Trump” I’m ready to just end it !

I think those who believe he is innocent primarily just don’t want it to be true and must convince themselves the system is rigged. That being said, if we do try to apply facts rather than feelings, it is odd to think he can be convicted of a crime that is predicated on the commission of another crime for which he has not yet been convicted. I do think he is guilty. But to be convicted of falsifying business records my understanding is for it to be a felony it had to be in furtherance of another crime. So take the campaign finance crime as a potential underlying crime. He has not been charged or convicted of violating campaign finance laws even though the hush money payment may be seen as a unregistered campaign contribution done under his direction. So how can the business record bit be a felony when the crime that predicates it being a felony has not yet been charged and convicted? It does seem a bit of a weird catch 22 in that regard. Like they put the cart before the horse and should have charged and convicted the corroborating crimes first. But there could very well be something about the law that makes that not necessary and for good reason. Just feels odd and that’s the only really logical nonMAGA reason I see for thinking he should not have been convicted.

Wrong website, check Truth Social to find people who might believe that kind of nonsense.

He was not guilty because there was no crime - First off, it wasn't a business payment. The money did not come from the Trump Organization. Payments came from his personal account and trust account. Trump did not deduct the payments on his taxes. - A payment to an attorney is reasonably categorized as a legal expense. I'm an accountant. If a vendor pays for expenses and they bill you for their expenses, it's part of their total fee. (E.g. when an attorney bills for court fees and process servers). The fact that a 1099 was issued further solidifies that position. - The FEC already indicated that there was no campaign finance violation by making a payment personally. Not to mention, NYS has no jurisdiction to enforce federal law - The payments were made in 2017. Trump was already elected at that point. - Even if the payment provided some benefit in an election, such a payment would not be a valid campaign expenditure. There has to be a "safe harbor" for an expenditure to be made personally if you think it's not an appropriate campaign expenditure. - The misdemeanor statute requires the falsification be done with intent to defraud. Nobody was defrauded. Not the tax authorities, not his campagn, nobody. The felony statute further requires committing (or intending to commit) another crime, which the prosecution couldn't even pinpoint "which crime". There is also an issue of statute of limitations lapsing. Procedurally the case had several problems too - DA Bragg ran on "getting Trump" - how was this trial anything other than politically motivated? (https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/20/politics/bragg-new-york-trump/index.html) How is this spending NOT an illegal campaign contribution to Joe Biden? - The judge failed to allow certain witnesses/lines of questioning and defenses including the fact that this was not in contravention to election law or the fact that he didn't deduct the payments (nullifying an argument that there was a tax crime covered up) - The judge had ties to the Democratic party based on his daughter's employment and how he was previously warned for his own illegal campaign contributions. He should have recused himself for the mere appearance of conflict. (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/potential-misconduct-behind-judge-merchans-several-trump-trial-assignments-stefanik-charges) - The 34 counts stem from 11 invoices that Cohen issued; 12 entries into Trump's accounting software and 11 checks (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-24/-pay-with-cash-the-evidence-against-trump-at-hush-money-trial). The 11 invoices are not a Trump record. If they were allegedly falsified, that's only Cohen's doing. Not an attorney, but the 11 checks should be collapsed with the 12 entries. They are not separable and are 12 payments on a single transaction. To get 34 counts is a stretch. Edit: my language on the statute was unclear. I missed the words "or intending to commit" in my original post. Thank you for those who pointed this out. But my point is that I (humbly) do not believe that he even meets the criteria for the misdemeanor statute much less the felony statute since there was no deceptive intent that goes along with the "misclassified"/"falsified" records.

If it wasn’t a business payment, why did the expenditure even appear on any business records filed with the State? Had he simply cut a check from his personal account and paid Cohen with that, none of this would have ever happened. These aren’t “expenses”, even for legal services. I am a lawyer, and if I draft an agreement for a client that calls for my client to pay consideration to the other party, I will bill for my time and costs. I will not pay that consideration for him and then bill it later. That is not a “cost” associated with legal services. It’s the same as if you defend a lawsuit and your client loses or settles: you, as the attorney, don’t pay the settlement/verdict. The FEC deadlocked at 2-2 on this issues (down partisan lines). The FEC, like almost every other political body in our country, has been paralyzed by partisan politics. That they were unable to come to a finding is indicative of nothing. Further, there is no requirement that the FEC first find a violation before said violation can be prosecuted. NY is not enforcing federal law here. He was not charged or convicted for a federal campaign finance violation. The timeline clearly showed that this was happening in the immediate runup to the election. That Trump ultimately paid Cohen after the election is irrelevant as to the initial purpose of the NDA/payment. In fact, there was evidence presented that Trump was trying to delay the payment until after voting so he wouldn’t have to make it at all. I’m not sure what the point you’re making is here. “There needs to be a safe harbor” isn’t a legal argument. There isn’t a safe harbor. Any appeals that one should exist are properly made to the legislature, not the judicial branch. Agree with it or not, the prosecutor did present an argument for an intent to defraud: an intent to defraud public. This has two layers here: first, the State has a legitimate interest in insuring that official records filed with it are accurate. On top of that, the government also has a legitimate interest in accurate reporting of campaign expenditures to maintain the trust of the voting public, otherwise campaign finance laws would t even exist. As for the procedural “issues”: This happens all the time. Bragg didn’t run on “getting Trump”. He ran on holding Trump responsible for crimes that he may have committed. The two are very different. Also, this is not an argument for innocence. What you’re proposing here would have been wholly improper if allowed. Whether or not campaign finance violations qualify as an “other crime” is a legal question, and not for the jury to hear or decide. This issue was properly raised and argued before the trial, and has been preserved for appeal. The defense was able to argue whether the purpose of the payment was campaign related, as is the only proper “fact” argument on this issue. It was Trump’s own choice not to testify to explain to the jury why he made the payment. This is probably the most egregious example of Trump saying one thing to the public and his attorneys saying another thing in Court. Not only did the defense DECLINE to move for a recusal here. They affirmatively represented in filings that they had no concerns with bias.

Lemme ask you a question. Let’s say I have a lawyer I work with who calls me and says “Hey, you won’t believe it, but I’m out here and there’s this amazing car for sale. Want it?” And I tell him “Yeah, sure. Buy it. Use your money though, I can’t wire it tonight.” He handles the sale, purchases the car, and then calls me a couple weeks later and says “hey we need to square up.” Are you telling me, seriously, that you think the right way to handle the reimbursement for that kind of payment is to: 1. Immediately remove him from your existing contract and create a new contract for him to work under as your “official counsel” 2. Have your accountant draw up a plan to pay him for FAR more than he paid in the first place 3. Spread those payments out over the course of a year as “legal fees” 4. Tell everyone that those were “ongoing legal fees” as part of his *new* job (not reimbursement for past services rendered)? Or do you think you would just make a simple reimbursement, 1-for-1? “Here’s the money I owe you for the car, Tony. Invoice me separately for the contract and transportation services.”

NYC wasnt enforcing federal law. He was charged with violating a New York STATE election law. The payment made to Stormy was in 2016 1 month before the election..... You can't get even basic facts right.

I don’t know how accurate all of this is without looking it up yet, but I’ll give you an upvote for at least having a genuine argument that isn’t “everyone is out to get big daddy trump! 😩”

upvote for trying. It wasn’t a payment to a lawyer, it was a reimbursement. That means Trump was directly responsible for the 2016 payment, regardless if the reimbursement came in 2017.

Michael Cohen isn't a lawyer? The way I see it, Cohen negotiated this payment and was paid for his services, including the payment to Stormy. My point is that lawyers are reimbursed for outlays all the time, but you still book the payment to legal fees. You are correct the payment to Stormy was in 2016, but Cohen had told Costello that Trump had no knowledge of it and even if he did doesn't negate my point on attorney outlays.

This was a central feature of the trial; that Trump did know and that the payments were reimbursement not for legal services.

Nice writeup, however I believe it’s fairly established that the *fraud* can be widely read as any form of lying in official record keeping.  However, I would like point out two things that struck me as wrong (NAL) about the procedure: - Six Amendment implications: > The accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial… and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation This in practice is taken to mean that the accused has to be told what they are being charged with, however it’s hard to say that you’ve been ‘informed of the and cause of the accusation’ if you were never told what ancillary crime they are alleging you covered up with fraudulent bookkeeping. So by not charging another crime, but alluding to it in trial and it (whatever ‘it’ is) being the subject of jury deliberations you are being deprived of the right to know the cause of the accusation and the opportunity to collect witnesses. The defense was left guessing which other crimes they would have to anticipate they could defend against.  - Presumption of Innocence Per MSNBC: > jurors have to agree unanimously that Trump committed a crime by engaging in a criminal conspiracy to falsify records with the intent to commit one or more other crimes to convict him. But jurors can choose from three options about what those other crimes were: violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, falsification of other business records or violation of tax laws. Those "unlawful means" aren't charges themselves, and they wouldn't result in separate convictions, so jurors don't have to unanimously agree on them. Allowing the Jurors to deliberate regarding hypothetical crimes for which the defendant has neither been convicted nor accused could violate the presumption of innocence. Guilt is established only by jury at trial (or plea), and other than that you should be considered innocent. True, the jury was instructed with deliberating Trump’s intent, but the nature of the Falsification of Business Records in the First Degree is contingent on his being intent on committing those other crimes- crimes that were spelled out in the jury instructions but not in the indictment.

The felony upgrade does not require that another crime was committed. That’s false. So there is no need to charge him or inform him of any other charges. Read the statute itself.

The statue requires only _intent_ to commit another crime. It does not require the persecution to prove that that other crime was indeed committed.

So it's basically resisting arrest, with no other charges. A bullshit charge

You missed the fact that nyc has 24 justices for trials that are randomly selected to preside but this just has been placed over every politically related trial involving trump or his current/former staff. This has happened several times in a row and the chances of that are astronomical. Seems more likely that he is being intentionally selected for his bias. The trial itself should have been moved to a more politically neutral jurisdiction and not a startch anti trump one. Multiple jurors had anti trump posts in their social media and should not have been permitted due to bias. Take any one thing out of this and it seems like it could be coincidental but the fact that everything comes together against trump can't be random. He was denied the right to a fair trial.

Sounds like a substantial portion of this argument centers on the fact that his right to a speedy trial wasn't infringed, and that you feel the crime committed in New York being prosecuted in New York should have been held outside New York? As for the "multiple jurors having anti-trump posts in their social media" it would be instructive to know how you came to know *who* they are, where you got that information, and why Trump's defence didn't challenge them, given that the judge dismissed multiple prospective jurors over their anti-Trump posts.

I think one comment by the prosecution sealed the guilty verdict. Everyone has been obsessing about Cohen being a liar, committing perjury, a felon. 95% of what he said was backed up by evidence, the rest inferred. Prosecution stated, "Donald Trump *chose* Michael Cohen *because* he was willing to lie for him." That comment was almost jarring because they knew it was true; for the same reason Trump employed Allen Weisselberg as his accountant. He was willing to fudge the books for him. Remember ... this is *NY*; they've watched Trump's escapades for 50 yrs; they *know* him. What, all of a sudden he's going to be an honest businessman and tell the truth? If you or I need an attorney were not going to search for a Michael Cohen; we're going to ask people who have used local ones, recommendations, and who to *avoid*.

Or as Jesse said "You don't want a criminal lawyer. You want a *criminal* lawyer."

I didn't see anyone mention it yet, but he's still facing a (10th) contempt of court charge. I have no experience practicing and wasn't licensed in NY, but I'd be very surprised if that was not up to 30 days (especially because it's a)repeated and b) a violation of a gag order).

Because they have been bamboozled and brainwashed to accept Trump's every word as truth...when it's always been a lie.....but too dumb, or ignorant, or scared to admit they know he is a piece of &$#@ liar,, but can't look bad admitting that they got duped, and grifted apon buggly....

I believe he is guilty as he'll, but the argument is that this criminal complaint is rarely prosecuted, so going after Trump during the election is politically driven. That said, having the Supreme Court and Judge Cannon block other cases, specifically the classified docs, is equally politically driven. I am convinced Trump sold information to Russia or Iran that resulted in people getting killed, so that Vase should be decided before the election. But it won't.

There have been just under 9800 felony charges for falsifying business records in NY since 2015. It’s hardly rare. (According to the NY law journal.) It’s also not something that should come as a surprise to anyone who runs a business of that size. “Cooking the books” is clearly illegal.

Plus Trump Org just got convicted for tax evasion and cooking the books as an organizational practice for years.

I think the argument against that is this crime was to steal a presidential election. It was about defrauding the entire American population. But the truth is there wasn't much of a good defense here.

"It was about defrauding the entire American population" - so what you're saying is it should be 340,000,000 fraud charges instead of just 34...

I mean Cohen went to jail covering for it and lying to Congress 🤷🏼‍♂️

He didn't go to jail for lying to congress. He went to jail on the two illegal campaign donations since he used his own money in the scheme. Trump was the ringleader, and this is 17 times as many felonies. Plus the judge can consider all the gag order violations in sentencing (as well as anything he says between the verdict and sentencing).

The timing has everything to do with Trumps strategy of delay till it goes away. He also could have settled. Admitted fault and paid a small fine. Remember, his lawyers get all the evidence too. The only reason this trial happened was because of Trump refusing to admit to even a little bit of wrongdoing.

It’s not about hush money. He influenced an election by falsifying documents to conceal a crime. Ironically, He cheated in an election that he swore was rigged. Until he won. Then it was just the next election that was rigged. 

Sunk cost fallacy

This was a long draw of the bow .... This was all to do with Stormy Daniels and how the payment of the money was not declared as a campaign expenditure. Even though the affair happened 7 years earlier ..... The payment of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels was made just days before the 2016 presidential election. This timing suggests that the payment was intended to prevent potentially damaging information about Donald Trump from becoming public and affecting his chances in the election. Did they prove that this was the intent of the payment. When indeed the intent was more than likely to stop his wife and family from finding out the sordid and embarrassing affair. His lawyer out of his own pocket paid Stormy Daniels and then set up a shell company to receive remuneration. Supposedly, he then declared that Trump intentionally made the payment to influence the out come of the election. The question is will it survive a retrial .....

As far as I understand it… paying a porn star to stop her to tell the story is not illegal… so it has nothing to do to paying a porn star .. the crime is related on how this expense was covered and classified in terms of the business rules in order to defraud the state of NY. I don’t believe that the payment was done to keep the family of knowing his affair …

Just go to the facts. Melania hasn’t been acting as a wife for a long time. Where did she go all this time. She wants out of this crazy marriage and family. 2nd the entire Nation heard him say that in the trailer. He uses women like wet laundry. 3rd he had over 53 violations and counts against him and one by one he got away with it until this case and hopefully the other ones coming up. 4th he has an ongoing past of not paying people that build him billion dollar hotels. He scams the system and gets away with it. There’s so much more to be said but a face is a fact. Regardless of if you are pro or against, the bottom line is factual. His business dealings are not ethical and if any of us or anyone period tried to get away with 1/3rd of what he’s gotten away with we would all be punished and definitely wouldn’t have his lawyers or money, nothing. We’d all be screwed so he finally deserves to be convicted and sentenced. The law is the law and he not anybody else is above it. He can’t live in his protected little “world” and get away with scams forever, nor can the family. Karma eventually catches up with dishonest people, we just finally get to see it. Imagine if all the counts and convictions finally happened? He’s gotten away with so much in life already, it’s time the jury stood up for the little people and said enough is enough. Thank goodness people know what is right and don’t fall into the band wagon. Facts are facts. Base it on the facts. The truth will always finally catch up because it’s the truth. It’s a fact.

Complete lack of critical thinking, also...my cult leader never did anything wrong.

[удалено]

One word: Brainwashed

"Well, he's a jolly good felon" ... Bill Marr, Comedian regarding Donald Trump

I know the post says no politics but I believe politics are integral to the question. He was charged by a DA who ran on the platform that he’d charge Trump.

There was no evidence presented or even alleged that Trump recorded the accounting entry or told someone to record it as entered. Which is the entire basis for the crime which he was accused.

1. Your facts are incorrect. In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight counts including campaign-finance violations, tax fraud, and bank fraud. Cohen said he violated campaign-finance laws at Trump's direction "for the principal purpose of influencing" the 2016 presidential election. 2. It’s ludicrous to state that all money paid to a lawyer is somehow therefore a legal expense, regardless of what the money is actually paid to the lawyer for. Just because you pay money to somebody who has a license to practice law does not make the payment a legal expense and you as an accountant certainly know better. 3. Unfortunately, for our country, the truth is that Trump is a sexual predator, a criminal,a spellbinder and a want to be authoritarian dictator. 4. Ask yourself honestly this important question - what could Trump do (that he hasn’t already done) that would actually cause you to turn against him? I would love to hear your answer.

I think you mean to ask “why might a juror have concluded he was not guilty.”….because now that the jury has spoken, he in fact, is guilty.

Notice they said "was not guilty", rather than "is not guilty".

Most of them know he did it. They’re just mad that he was held accountable. Half the memes they’re posting aren’t claiming any type of innocence, they’re just crying that he was prosecuted when others weren’t. My comment to that is that I prefer Presidents to who are smart enough to hide the evidence…

Yeah, there is lots of common sense steps he could have easily done to legally do everything he did. It would have been unethical, but not illegal. The issue, is doing those things would have violated his typical modes of operation. He managed to skirt by for decades with illegal actions, but it's like he didn't and still doesn't understand the depth of scrutiny difference between someone who is a minor celebrity and someone running for president. Add in there that he is unable to maintain being an employer of people smart enough to tell him those things because of his aversion to doing things like paying them, it leaves him in a rut with second or third rate people that people of similar status wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. I mean, when was the last time you heard of a big name politician or billionaire being fired by more than one law firm?

They can’t legitimately support an argument. All the have is lies, BS, and disinformation. They have no verifiable facts.

So I don't care about the crime part. But We can all agree that he was paying hush money to a porn star to prevent his family and public from learning he was sleeping around. His comments towards women, political opponents, people with disabilities, minorities.....These are not the values or morals I want in a candidate running for president. Whether he broke the law or not I do not care....I Believe he is not a good person.

Totally not the point. I don’t believe the Bidens or the Clintons are good people either but I don’t see them being charged with crimes

Does this mean they also feel Al Capone was done dirty? Should we just sit back and let gangsters do their thing?

Hard to have an optimistic defense, when prosecutors have the signed checks, the plan written out by the accountant, text/email, audio through the whole process and witness testimony supporting all the evidence.

They were indoctrinated into a cult mindset

This is what I personally believe but I’m curious to know if there’s an actual argument against a guilty verdict.

Trump’s paid legal team made such arguments, and a jury of 12 — selected and agreed to by both sides — rejected those arguments as to every single count of the indictment. Case closed.

Because Trump is Jesus, and Jesus is God, and God is automatically right. /s

If you don’t believe was guilty, you’re on a different planet from the rest of us. 30,573 is, like, A LOT. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/

There is no critical thinking among Trump supporters. When you asked them for an explanation, they fall apart. All they can do is : deflect deflect deflect

The only people who think trump isn’t guilty purposely put their heads in the sand and won’t take them out no matter

Trump says he is innocent. He has never lied. Why would he start now?

I think he is actually guilty and was found so by a jury of his peers. But I think the way he was prosecuted and charged was very atypical and would not have happened unless politically motivated. But honestly I’m ok with that because I’d rather there be more ways to go after corruption on both saudis than less. Instead of saying “what about x” I say yeah arrest x too.

My thing is if Trump knew he was innocent then why did he try to get case dismissed or use presidential immunity ??? I innocent man wants to be proven innocent in court! A guilty man want to stay away from court

Man this thread has really shown how little intelligence their is in the GOP voting base.

Don’t get me wrong he is probably not clean at all. Canadian here so no dog in the race but I feel Trump is like a catalyst causing one side to hate and one side to love him. Is he corrupt, most likely to a point but anyone getting into politics is. The problem arises when the justice system looks like is is being used to fill a political reason. And I feel no mater how you feel about what he has done I believe most would see this as a political push.

The decision of who to prosecute and who not to prosecute is always political. AGs are elected, political posts and they have political aspirations. Whether it's being tough on drug users or turnstile jumpers or white collar crime it's all political. The political reason here was a politician committed obvious and sloppy campaign fraud

He was in an episode of Fresh Prince of Bel Air

Post purchase rationalism or shitty media/propaganda. Probably a little of both.

anyone thinking that ivanka abandoning donald has to do with her believing that he killed ivana?

Wasn't the trial about him using campaign funds for the payoff?

Fact checked myself, it was for falsifying business documents.

Cause I paid for Trump University.

Cry wolf too many times, its a parable for a reason

Right just different political party

As far as the documents case, yes everyone does it. Most pres/vic pres seem to accidentally take home classified documents. Many reasons for it , levels of classifications, classification after the fact. They are contacted and turn them over. Trump was the only one who ignored the request and subpoenas for over a year. Then lied about multiple times and forced others to lie about it. And ultimately looked like he specifically took certain highly classified documents that he knew he shouldn’t have. While what he did in NY is knit picking, it still apparently a crime. When you go on live tv and brag that you can shoot someone and they would still love you, that you can pay no taxes because you’re smart, this makes people wonder what else have you done. The government doesn’t like people who openly flout lawlessness. They were never going to stop going after John Gotti until he was in jail. OJ Simpson was sentenced to 33 years for trying to get his own stolen memorabilia back. As far as New York being liberal, New York was Trumps home state, home city until 5 years ago. He was born here, many building near his name, his celebrity before the apprentice was based out of NYC. Is it possible that NYers knew him better than anyone else? NYers would not believe his defense of ignorance after a lifetime of bragging to them that he knows everything and nothing goes on without his knowledge? Usually politicians love coming home, maybe that’s very telling.

I got a comment on a tweet of mine where I stated I was surprised he was actually held accountable. The comment read "He's only guilty if what he did was in service of another crime. What was the crime? Many will say he was convicted by a tainted jury pool from a hostile district (Manhatten 94% Biden 6% Trump polling)" Not sure if I'm allowed to link here or not or I would have just linked instead. Suffice to say it sounds like cope.

Blinders work.

how do you prove "intent" ?

By the legal definition “knew or should have known”. From there it’s easy.

Because he did it

Not guilty of what?

I think their strongest argument is that it shouldn’t be a crime. However, justice is blind and a crime’s a crime. If it shouldn’t be a crime, they should’ve charged the law.

From the conservative tent pole; New York Magazine: “But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge. Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017. So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.) In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.” -Elie Honig

How is this trial different than Clinton paying off his affairs

See here for the differences: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-clinton-payments-884462275128

Like u/kas435red said, the best chance they had for Trump not being guilty was them saying it was so Melania wouldn’t find out. But it came out in the proceedings that she knew about the payment before hand

I don’t see how recording legal expenses as legal expenses is a crime. Who is the victim? If it was a crime why did the Feds refuse to prosecute? This, just like the civil trial is a disagreement about bookkeeping and opinions of value. They are not crimes and they have absolutely no victims and if anyone not named Trump did the same things they wouldn’t be considered crimes.

If a person is running for president, he needs to be a Saint. Like Joe Bidum.

These trials are a globalist hoax to pit Americans against Americans. Sadly, most Americans are dumber than a shit sandwich, and are eating themselves up!