This time next year, President Trump moves back into the Whitehouse...

[Sadlonelygit]

My understanding is that Trump was not convicted of paying 'hush money' but instead was convicted of falsifying business records

Yes, but for him to have guilty of that, the pay off would have had to have been illegal. That's the part people seem to be missing.

He paid money to a lawyer, his accountant listed the payments as legal expenses. I'm not sure what else payments to a lawyer could have been called?

My understanding is that money was withdrawn from the company for a private personal matter but represented in company accounts as a bone fide company expense (ie as a legal expense). That the intermediary in the transaction happened to be a lawyer is not relevant.

Don't confuse him with logic now, he's feeling persecuted on behalf of MAGA

[ZRX61]

My understanding is that money was withdrawn from the company for a private personal matter but represented in company accounts as a bone fide company expense (ie as a legal expense). That the intermediary in the transaction happened to be a lawyer is not relevant.

Irrelevant, statute of limitations had expired. There's so many holes in this case that even the BBC listed some of them.

[Cousin Jack]

Guilty or not, he has shown himself to be a dishonest bloke who bribes people. Most sensible people would decline to vote for such a person.

Hopefully sufficient septics will do so. Biden is senile, but he is a puppet anyway.

[irie]

My understanding is that money was withdrawn from the company for a private personal matter but represented in company accounts as a bone fide company expense (ie as a legal expense). That the intermediary in the transaction happened to be a lawyer is not relevant.

Irrelevant, statute of limitations had expired. There's so many holes in this case that even the BBC listed some of them.

So you have changed your position and now accept that this case is about use of company money for private matters, rather than about 'hush money' as such. Interesting ...

[wheelnut]

Trumps campaign raked in almost $100Million since the verdict..

It’s amusing that it’s money donated by hundreds of thousands of generally blue collar, normally prudish Americans to defend him against the results of shagging and subsequently paying off a porn star.

[Saga Lout]

Could I just point out that this was not a corrupt judge conniving with a corrupt prosecutor in a corrupt political show trial. Such things only happen in third world banana republics and tin-pot dictatorships, so it definitely wasn't one.

Glad we've got that sorted out.

[ZRX61]

So you have changed your position and now accept that this case is about use of company money for private matters, rather than about 'hush money' as such. Interesting ...

What part of "irrelevant" are you having trouble with?

His accountant listed it as legal expenses. The total paid to Cohen was about $460K (& he admitted on the stand that he stole at least $60k from Trump, which would be Grand Larceny), Stormy only got $120k or so of it. So what does the rest of the money fall under? I couldn't possibly give any less of a fuck where the money came from. It's peanuts to Trump.

[ZRX61]

Could I just point out that this was not a corrupt judge conniving with a corrupt prosecutor in a corrupt political show trial. Such things only happen in third world banana republics and tin-pot dictatorships, so it definitely wasn't one.

Glad we've got that sorted out.

LMFAO! The judge on this case wasn't even part of the pool to pick from for the trial. You'd be amazed how often jurors find out about stuff after a trial & say "if we had known that, the verdict would have gone the other way".
In this case all sorts of stuff was withheld, the big one being that paying off Stormy wasn't illegal. & Trump was convicted on the 34 counts because he had to be guilty of the pay off *crime* for the 34 counts to be valid. If the jurors had known the pay off was legal, they couldn't have convicted him.
They defense argued that in front of the judge for a mistrial with the jury out of the room, judge denied the motion, then let the jurors back in after the defense was instructed not to mention it in front of the jurors.
That alone will have Trump winning the appeal.

[irie]

...
paying off Stormy wasn't illegal. & Trump was convicted on the 34 counts because he had to be guilty of the pay off *crime* for the 34 counts to be valid. If the jurors had known the pay off was legal, they couldn't have convicted him.
...

My understanding is that Trump was not convicted of paying 'hush money' but instead was convicted of falsifying business records
...
... that money was withdrawn from the company for a private personal matter but represented in company accounts as a bone fide company expense (ie as a legal expense). That the intermediary in the transaction happened to be a lawyer is not relevant.

[Count Steer]

So, he wasn't guilty of something he wasn't charged with which wasn't illegal - paying off a prostitute.

He was guilty of what he was charged with - cooking the company books/false accounting whatever.

If the statute of limitations meant that the crime he was charged with no longer applied it wouldn't have reached court.

It seems the argument is he wasn't charged with something that wasn't a crime therefore nothing else he did was a crime so he shouldn't be charged for anything really.

I'll try that if I ever get nicked for something. 'I didn't do anything illegal the day before so you can't nick me for something I did the next day'.

(Probably better if they hadn't charged him though. It just feeds the MAGA conspiracy/grievance machine and gives the Great Orange One more oxygen of publicity).

[Mr. Dazzle]

From what I've been able to follow it does seem like the whole defense (both literally and in the press) revolves around the hush money not being illegal etc. I.e. not around the actual crime.

It's like me saying "I didn't pay my taxes and I used the money I saved to buy a boat. Its not illegal to buy a boat therefore I'm fine".

Maybe that's why he lost

[Cousin Jack]

When you pay a personal debt (bribe, hush money, legal, illegal, whatever) from a company account and describe it as legal expenses it is false accounting. No shades of grey, he did it, he's guilty. And so said the jury.

[Mussels]

When you pay a personal debt (bribe, hush money, legal, illegal, whatever) from a company account and describe it as legal expenses it is false accounting. No shades of grey, he did it, he's guilty. And so said the jury.

Wasn't that considered a minor crime that had been left too long to prosecute?

I'm no fan of Trump but they have manipulated the court system in ways not done before. This smacks of desperation and trying to rig an election, which is what Trump is accused of. Reading BBC interviews with swing voters it seems to be the common belief over there for anyone who isn't a firm Biden supporter.

[ZRX61]

Wasn't that considered a minor crime that had been left too long to prosecute?

I'm no fan of Trump but they have manipulated the court system in ways not done before. This smacks of desperation and trying to rig an election, which is what Trump is accused of. Reading BBC interviews with swing voters it seems to be the common belief over there for anyone who isn't a firm Biden supporter.

Yes. Misdemeanors, which Bragg changed to felonies because the crime of paying off Stormy to get around the statute of limitations..

Like I said, without the *underlying crime* (the legal pay-off non-crime) he couldn't be prosecuted... except the jury wasn't told that.

[Horse]

"Mr Trump acknowledged the possibility of being imprisoned, saying that he is "okay with it" but that he is "not sure the public would stand for it"."

Reminiscent of

""We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said."

[wheelnut]

Irrelevant, statute of limitations had expired. There's so many holes in this case that even the BBC listed some of them.

Yet the defence never mentioned that. Not once.

There are all sorts of reasons why this prosecution was unwise. Some technical, some common sense, but you haven’t been able to list any of them yet.

[ZRX61]

Yet the defence never mentioned that. Not once.

Judge wouldn't allow it.

[wheelnut]

Yet the defence never mentioned that. Not once.

Judge wouldn't allow it.

If you’re correct and the judge didn’t allow it, what legal basis did he have for not allowing it?*

*I’m assuming there would have been a pre trial motion to dismiss the charges based on SoL - I haven’t checked though. His defence team did seem spectacularly inept.

Edit - that may be what his appeal will be based on - ineffective assistance of counsel

[ZRX61]

If you’re correct and the judge didn’t allow it, what legal basis did he have for not allowing it?*

*I’m assuming there would have been a pre trial motion to dismiss the charges based on SoL - I haven’t checked though. His defence team did seem spectacularly inept.

Edit - that may be what his appeal will be based on - ineffective assistance of counsel

Legal basis & precedent weren't part of this trial. His defense team weren't allowed to defend him.

[DefTrap]

The judge is there to ensure the letter of the law is followed and that the trial doesn't descend into farcical showboating, character assassination, namecalling and fibbing. I understand that for a politician who only has that in his armoury this must seem like having your arms and legs cut off.