Even CNN admits, the crimes Michael Cohen admitted to under oath are worse than the falsification of business records Trump is on trial for.

Cohen confessed he stole upwards of $60,000 from the Trump Organization.

So, the prosecution's star witness is both a liar AND a thief.  He admitted to both.

Well, it took forever, but Trump was finally sentenced for his 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.

And the sentence is ..... absolutely nothing!

The official sentence was "Unconditional discharge," which I guess is just one step above dismissal and one step below time served.

No jail/prison time.  No probation.  No ankle bracelet.  No slap on the wrist.   I know the TDS sufferers are reeling! 

Think of all the time, cost to tax payers, resources, and legal costs 100% wasted on absolutely nothing. 

The charges were based on an underlying crime that has never been made public or proven in court, because without that mystery count, the 34 felonies would have been misdemeanors which were already beyond the statute of limitations. 

The hush money was paid to Cohen as legal costs, and as the lawyer he then paid Stormy.  Nothing illegal about the payment.  Nothing illegal about having a lawyer give or receive money on your behalf for any reason.  Lawyers represent their clients, and it would be stupid to expect a hush money payment -- which included a non-disclosure agreement -- to be entered as "Hush money payment to Adult Entertainment Star" in records that are publicly accessible.  Why require an NDA if you're going to advertise it yourself?

Lawfare is real.  I would have preferred a complete dismissal of all charges, but we all know they did this just to create a scandal during the election and dropping the charges at this late stage of sentencing would have admitted the entire thing was theater.

Trump intends to appeal the verdict, so we'll see what judges outside the NY cesspool have to say.

And according to 1 person (EEF), I should use this conviction of 34 counts to factor in if I want Trump as a POTUS or not.  Cause you know, there's no such thing as targeting people for political reasons.

InB4 Lawfare isn't a legal term.

And according to 1 person (EEF), I should use this conviction of 34 counts to factor in if I want Trump as a POTUS or not.  Cause you know, there's no such thing as targeting people for political reasons.

InB4 Lawfare isn't a legal term.

I think the Trump DOJ needs to press the NY prosecutor on the details of that underlying felony. That should have been made just as public as the 34 felonies it spawned, so we can see exactly how they were able to bootstrap this case.

Seems like this is similar to the "fruit of the poison apple" metaphor that describes evidence seized in illegal searches. 

And according to 1 person (EEF), I should use this conviction of 34 counts to factor in if I want Trump as a POTUS or not.  Cause you know, there's no such thing as targeting people for political reasons.

InB4 Lawfare isn't a legal term.

You are either lying or just completely failed to understand my point. Good job.

I think the Trump DOJ needs to press the NY prosecutor on the details of that underlying felony. That should have been made just as public as the 34 felonies it spawned, so we can see exactly how they were able to bootstrap this case.

Seems like this is similar to the "fruit of the poison apple" metaphor that describes evidence seized in illegal searches.

What are you getting at there? Is there something that wasn't covered in the trial?

What are you getting at there? Is there something that wasn't covered in the trial?

Define covered.

The charges state:

...
Tying the false statements to alleged election law crimes underpins Bragg’s case
to elevate the crimes to felonies.

“The participants’ scheme was illegal,” Bragg said. “The scheme violated New York
election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful
means. The $130,000 wire payment exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap.

To my knowledge, Trump was never brought up on charges and allowed his day in court to fight the alleged NY election law allegations. 

If offering someone consideration -- money, job, publicity -- in exchange for covering up or publicizing information that can affect an election, then every presidential politician is guilty but only Trump was charged.  Remember how Bill Clinton had someone in charge of "Bimbo Eruptions"?  They had a person specifically handling accusers who came out of the woodwork to keep a lid on their stories.  The ones who didn't want to comply were shredded in the news to destroy their lives and protect Clinton.  look up Paula Jones.

So, while they painted a picture of some illegal scheme that was bootstrapped into 34 felonies, there's never been an actual verdict saying the underlying crime ever occurred or was proven.

I believe AOC was found to have violated campaign finance limits and rules, too.  Where are her fenoy charges?  She's a New Yorker, so Bragg ought to be all over that criminal.

Her crime was closer to money laundering to hide campaign finances.

Ocasio-Cortez, chief of staff illegally moved $885G
in campaign contributions 'off the books,' FEC complaint alleges

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortezs-millionaire-chief-of-staff-violated-fec-rules-to-hide-885g-fec-complaint-alleges
#Lawfare

You are either lying or just completely failed to understand my point. Good job.

Hahahhahhhaha. Nice try.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

What are you getting at there? Is there something that wasn't covered in the trial?

We covered this already.

See what happens when u ignore logic and go by imaginagion and whataboutism.  Its hard to remember what imaginary stories u made up.


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

We covered this already.

See what happens when u ignore logic and go by imaginagion and whataboutism.  Its hard to remember what imaginary stories u made up.

It really doesn't take a genius to see the truth. 

If Trump were guilty of the underlying crime, which is a felony according to Bragg's charging documents, then why was Trump not prosecuted for that instead of a made-up list of felonies predicated on the one?  The 34 charges were the same "crime" charged for each time a monthly payment was made to Cohen for legal expenses. 

That's like a Cop pulling you over after following you for 3 miles and then writing you 10 tickets for each time he clocked you going over the limit in those 3 miles.

if the business records were illegally entered, that was ONE business record -- the account -- not 3 charges for 11 months for each of the same entry.  it was one payment made over time and installments.  Even Cohen testified he made the payment himself in a lump sum then billed Trump for it over time.  One transaction, not 11.

Anyway, that underlying crime is what i see as the long pole in the tent.  Without that bogus allegation, the misdemeanors would have expired and never become charges at all, much less felonies.

The sentencing proves he did nothing wrong.  Who gets convicted of 34 felonies and sentenced to absolutely nothing?

Define covered.

The charges state:

To my knowledge, Trump was never brought up on charges and allowed his day in court to fight the alleged NY election law allegations. 

If offering someone consideration -- money, job, publicity -- in exchange for covering up or publicizing information that can affect an election, then every presidential politician is guilty but only Trump was charged.  Remember how Bill Clinton had someone in charge of "Bimbo Eruptions"?  They had a person specifically handling accusers who came out of the woodwork to keep a lid on their stories.  The ones who didn't want to comply were shredded in the news to destroy their lives and protect Clinton.  look up Paula Jones.

So, while they painted a picture of some illegal scheme that was bootstrapped into 34 felonies, there's never been an actual verdict saying the underlying crime ever occurred or was proven.

I believe AOC was found to have violated campaign finance limits and rules, too.  Where are her fenoy charges?  She's a New Yorker, so Bragg ought to be all over that criminal.

Her crime was closer to money laundering to hide campaign finances.

Ocasio-Cortez, chief of staff illegally moved $885G
in campaign contributions 'off the books,' FEC complaint alleges

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortezs-millionaire-chief-of-staff-violated-fec-rules-to-hide-885g-fec-complaint-alleges
#Lawfare

I am not saying you are wrong here, I am trying to understand what you meant by saying "should have been made just as public as the 34 felonies". It sounded like you are saying something was kept secret. I don't know what you are saying did not get brought forward about the federal campaign finance law part. 


As for AOC and other people who commit campaign finance violations, IIRC people are almost never convicted for violating those laws, just fined because the rules are so complex that they are violated all the time, intentionally or unintentionally.


As for your statement that the sentence proves he did nothing wrong, that is not what it means. The ruling is a practical one, made so as not to disrupt the function of the presidency. Can you imagine trying to have the president on probation?

I am not saying you are wrong here, I am trying to understand what you meant by saying "should have been made just as public as the 34 felonies". It sounded like you are saying something was kept secret. I don't know what you are saying did not get brought forward about the federal campaign finance law part. 


As for AOC and other people who commit campaign finance violations, IIRC people are almost never convicted for violating those laws, just fined because the rules are so complex that they are violated all the time, intentionally or unintentionally.


As for your statement that the sentence proves he did nothing wrong, that is not what it means. The ruling is a practical one, made so as not to disrupt the function of the presidency. Can you imagine trying to have the president on probation?

SWOOOOOSSSHHHHHHH

I am not saying you are wrong here, I am trying to understand what you meant by saying "should have been made just as public as the 34 felonies". It sounded like you are saying something was kept secret. I don't know what you are saying did not get brought forward about the federal campaign finance law part. 


As for AOC and other people who commit campaign finance violations, IIRC people are almost never convicted for violating those laws, just fined because the rules are so complex that they are violated all the time, intentionally or unintentionally.


As for your statement that the sentence proves he did nothing wrong, that is not what it means. The ruling is a practical one, made so as not to disrupt the function of the presidency. Can you imagine trying to have the president on probation?

When the government and the media repeat the "34 felonies" in every story but almost never include the underlying felony he was never convicted of, it's for a purpose.  Anyone with a brain would ask, "Why not convict on that one felony instead of manufacturing 34 more felonies that should have been misdemeanors?"

They wanted this prosecution to become a barrier to Trump winning the election.  If you want an example of actual election interference, which was the supposed never-tried underlying felony, this case is a perfect example.  It would be perfect if the DOJ convicted Bragg of election interference.

The fact you know campaign finance violations are usually punished with a fine (plus giving back any illegal donations) is important.  What makes this case different?  Why did Trump get tried on 34 felony counts based on one count of election interference for PAYING someone to be quiet -- the exact opposite of what most campaign finance violations entail, i.e. receiving money?

It would not be difficult for Trump to perform 30 hours of community service.  in fact, he would love being out with people cleaning up a park, serving the needy in a soup kitchen or visiting the very ill in a hospital or hospice.  Probation is a problem because he has to be able to travel.  Same problem with having an ankle bracelet.  He could have also been fined a few million to pay back a portion of the money NYC wasted trying to keep him from winning the race.

There's also something called deferred sentencing.  He could have been sentenced to 2 years probation deferred for 6 months (or some other probationary period). After 6 months of probation, if he's not brought up on any more charges in that jurisdiction, the sentence is replaced with a dismissal of any conviction or plea deal, so as to not have a conviction on his record.

A deferred sentence is a court-passed judgment that allows a probationary
period before imposing the sentence. This option might be given in cases
when repeat offenses are unlikely, when the accused has no criminal record
or often at the judge’s discretion. If at the end of the probationary time the
defendant has met all imposed conditions, a judge might throw out the
sentence and guilty plea, leaving the defendant without a recorded conviction
for most purposes.

https://www.mylawquestions.com/what-is-a-deferred-sentence.htm

By choosing unconditional discharge, they are basically saying, "Game's over.  We quit."  They keep his felony convictions on his criminal record so they can use them against him in the future.  Hopefully the next president has the good sense to grant him a full pardon for these charges that never should have been filed against him, much less convicted and sentenced.

Who in the history if the US is convicted of 34 felonies in one trial and not sentenced to any punishment at all?  Felonies are pretty serious charges.  If they were really conerned about it impacting his ability to perform his presidential duties, they would have dismissed the entire thing with prejudice.  Jury verdicts get set aside all the time.  But when the DA and judge are going after a political target, they can't see the damage they are doing.  They only see the chance to bag a big trophy.

When the government and the media repeat the "34 felonies" in every story but almost never include the underlying felony he was never convicted of, it's for a purpose.  Anyone with a brain would ask, "Why not convict on that one felony instead of manufacturing 34 more felonies that should have been misdemeanors?"

They wanted this prosecution to become a barrier to Trump winning the election.  If you want an example of actual election interference, which was the supposed never-tried underlying felony, this case is a perfect example.  It would be perfect if the DOJ convicted Bragg of election interference.

The fact you know campaign finance violations are usually punished with a fine (plus giving back any illegal donations) is important.  What makes this case different?  Why did Trump get tried on 34 felony counts based on one count of election interference for PAYING someone to be quiet -- the exact opposite of what most campaign finance violations entail, i.e. receiving money?

It would not be difficult for Trump to perform 30 hours of community service.  in fact, he would love being out with people cleaning up a park, serving the needy in a soup kitchen or visiting the very ill in a hospital or hospice.  Probation is a problem because he has to be able to travel.  Same problem with having an ankle bracelet.  He could have also been fined a few million to pay back a portion of the money NYC wasted trying to keep him from winning the race.

There's also something called deferred sentencing.  He could have been sentenced to 2 years probation deferred for 6 months (or some other probationary period). After 6 months of probation, if he's not brought up on any more charges in that jurisdiction, the sentence is replaced with a dismissal of any conviction or plea deal, so as to not have a conviction on his record.https://www.mylawquestions.com/what-is-a-deferred-sentence.htm

By choosing unconditional discharge, they are basically saying, "Game's over.  We quit."  They keep his felony convictions on his criminal record so they can use them against him in the future.  Hopefully the next president has the good sense to grant him a full pardon for these charges that never should have been filed against him, much less convicted and sentenced.

Who in the history if the US is convicted of 34 felonies in one trial and not sentenced to any punishment at all?  Felonies are pretty serious charges.  If they were really conerned about it impacting his ability to perform his presidential duties, they would have dismissed the entire thing with prejudice.  Jury verdicts get set aside all the time.  But when the DA and judge are going after a political target, they can't see the damage they are doing.  They only see the chance to bag a big trophy.

U stating facts. It's like someone here who claims to use logic, cannot make this same determination.

SWOOOOOSSSHHHHHHH

Not an argument.

When the government and the media repeat the "34 felonies" in every story but almost never include the underlying felony he was never convicted of, it's for a purpose.  Anyone with a brain would ask, "Why not convict on that one felony instead of manufacturing 34 more felonies that should have been misdemeanors?"

They wanted this prosecution to become a barrier to Trump winning the election.  If you want an example of actual election interference, which was the supposed never-tried underlying felony, this case is a perfect example.  It would be perfect if the DOJ convicted Bragg of election interference.

The fact you know campaign finance violations are usually punished with a fine (plus giving back any illegal donations) is important.  What makes this case different?  Why did Trump get tried on 34 felony counts based on one count of election interference for PAYING someone to be quiet -- the exact opposite of what most campaign finance violations entail, i.e. receiving money?

It would not be difficult for Trump to perform 30 hours of community service.  in fact, he would love being out with people cleaning up a park, serving the needy in a soup kitchen or visiting the very ill in a hospital or hospice.  Probation is a problem because he has to be able to travel.  Same problem with having an ankle bracelet.  He could have also been fined a few million to pay back a portion of the money NYC wasted trying to keep him from winning the race.

There's also something called deferred sentencing.  He could have been sentenced to 2 years probation deferred for 6 months (or some other probationary period). After 6 months of probation, if he's not brought up on any more charges in that jurisdiction, the sentence is replaced with a dismissal of any conviction or plea deal, so as to not have a conviction on his record.https://www.mylawquestions.com/what-is-a-deferred-sentence.htm

By choosing unconditional discharge, they are basically saying, "Game's over.  We quit."  They keep his felony convictions on his criminal record so they can use them against him in the future.  Hopefully the next president has the good sense to grant him a full pardon for these charges that never should have been filed against him, much less convicted and sentenced.

Who in the history if the US is convicted of 34 felonies in one trial and not sentenced to any punishment at all?  Felonies are pretty serious charges.  If they were really conerned about it impacting his ability to perform his presidential duties, they would have dismissed the entire thing with prejudice.  Jury verdicts get set aside all the time.  But when the DA and judge are going after a political target, they can't see the damage they are doing.  They only see the chance to bag a big trophy.

If I understand correctly, the jury doesn't have to find him guilty of the underlying felony as a separate charge in order for them to find him guilty of the 34 felonies. I remember hearing a lawyer explain it but I have to go find the explanation again. I think the gist was that as long as the jury is convinced Trump committed the underlying offense then they can convict for the 34 felonies even though a charge wasn't brought for the underlying charge.

The 34 felony charges were laws about business records, they were not campaign finance laws, so that may explain why we would see different punishments than we see from other politicians who violate campaign finance laws.

I don't think the pardon makes sense at this point. It would be more beneficial for Trump to win on appeal than to simple be pardoned because a pardon doesn't erase his felony conviction. A pardoned Trump would still be a felon Trump, but if Trump wins his appeal then he would no longer be a convicted felon.

For the record, I don't think this charge should have been brought, it was a real stretch and even if technically correct I think it was a mistake.