Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records

[Lacessit]

Trump has won many legal battles. The difference this time is a criminal trial, not a civil case.

I wonder if the gullible who put in the donations ( $4 million?) realise their money is going straight to his legal team. I can't imagine there is a single lawyer in America, who would take on Trump as a client, without payment up front.

It's interesting Trump kept his mouth shut during his courtroom appearance, no doubt following the advice of his lawyers. He can't intimidate judges as he could the Republicans during his impeachments, and their response would be swift.

Trump complains the legal system is weaponized against him, after doing exactly the same with the DOJ when he was President. Som nam na.

This is only the beginning, Merrick Garland is waiting in the wings. So is Georgia.

[pomchop]

11 minutes ago, Salerno said:

Don't they have solitary confinement in the States?

yes but that doesn't mean that a guard or a hitman might get to him....contrary to what the right thinks there are a lot of people who don't much care for the don.

[pomchop]

8 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

Again, a big nothing burger! So what is the crime of intent behind the 34 counts?

Oh you will get your big burger soon enough....read the indictment or indication as t calls it...

[Drumbuie]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I am not saying it is not a crime or that in an ideal world charges are not appropriate. But would have they put the resources into this over something that happened some years ago if it wasn't Trump. Not sure. It certainly gives the right ammunition to suggest he is getting special treatment. That is if my interpretation of what has come out is correct. 

"And justice for all.." 

Nobody should be above the law. 

 

What brought down Al Capone wasn't his career as a mobster, it was tax evasion. Those who don't understand history - or accountancy - are doomed to repeat it. 

 

[Scott]

Inflammatory, off-topic posts and replies removed.  Continue and face a suspension. 

 

[Salerno]

23 minutes ago, pomchop said:

yes but that doesn't mean that a guard or a hitman might get to him....contrary to what the right thinks there are a lot of people who don't much care for the don.

Actions have consequences, join the secret service, stand outside a cell for a couple of years ????

[EVENKEEL]

Isn't it a bit funny that after years of trying to put Mr Trump behind bars they come up with money paid to a porn star. So now the media can concentrate on this instead of the other more important issues plaguing the country like immigration, homelessness and drugs. 

[sammieuk1]

Stormy waters ahead for the tangerine dream by the look of it very very funny ????

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

Isn't it a bit funny that after years of trying to put Mr Trump behind bars they come up with money paid to a porn star. So now the media can concentrate on this instead of the other more important issues plaguing the country like immigration, homelessness and drugs. 

What would you expect? Immigration, homelessness and drugs are dull subjects compared to the media profits to be made by following the Trump circus. Cue Sean Hannity, publicly supporting Trump to keep his audience of the unwashed, while privately despising him.

Your post is incorrect, no-one has tried to put Trump behind bars in civil cases. Remove him from office or get money owed back out of him, yes.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

This case is open to being interpreted as being followed up for political purposes - given the time the alleged acts happened and the substantiveness of the issues.

I had looked to whether the facts, for the basis and reasoning of proceeding with the case, would put it beyond doubt that that it was not done for those reasons. The argument for the case indicates it is a thing, and is I guess likely laws were broken, but it seems the right WILL have a basis to say this was done for political reasons. It may be that more will come out to justify these actions over time. 

As others have said, the other cases appear to be much more serious, and the argument to take matters further against a former president more substantive. 

We are all entitled to our opinions and mine on this is that is more about politics than substance.

 

On Al Jazeera they had a long item about it and had two experts on the law with opposing view points- one that Trump has a serious problem and the other that he has a very good defense against it all.

As pointed out, Trump has far more serious cases coming up in the future.

 

Seems agreed that no trial before next year sometime is happening, and no guaranteed guilty verdict and even if guilty, no guaranteed jail time.

 

Sooooo, for those wanting to see him in handcuffs and straight off to jail, LOL.

 

Notable for the complete lack of any civil disorder, despite the best efforts of certain people to ramp up the "threat" of rioting MAGA supporters.

Bet all the cops that had their leave cancelled are not impressed.

 

The most disappointed IMO- the media that were hyping it as much as they could had not much to take away- just a motorcade, a bit of VDO in the hallway and a few still photos. No rioting, no disruption ( other than that caused by the city authorities closing lots of roads ), and peaceable as any N Y day.

[thaibeachlovers]

46 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Trump complains the legal system is weaponized against him, after doing exactly the same with the DOJ when he was President.

Given that you state that as a fact, some evidence of that is in order. I don't recall any such.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Isn't it a bit funny that after years of trying to put Mr Trump behind bars they come up with money paid to a porn star. So now the media can concentrate on this instead of the other more important issues plaguing the country like immigration, homelessness and drugs. 

It's an old political ploy- the Romans gave bread and circuses to the mob to keep their minds off the important things.

[johnnybangkok]

15 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Isn't it a bit funny that after years of trying to put Mr Trump behind bars they come up with money paid to a porn star. So now the media can concentrate on this instead of the other more important issues plaguing the country like immigration, homelessness and drugs. 

Please do try and follow what’s going on. It’s really not that difficult.
It’s not the fact he paid money to a porn star. That’s not illegal. What is illegal is that Trump falsified cheque records and ledger entries over the course of 11 months to make it appear that those payments were for "legal fees" and not reimbursements. 
This was all done in the run up to the election, where obviously an affair with a porn star might (just might) be seen as slightly negative. 
The charges are for business fraud. 

[Dan O]

3 hours ago, Tug said:

This is the least serious of the cases he’s facing (because of his actions) does anyone think it’s penetrating his brain that he in deep trouble or does he think he’s truly untouchable?

He's a narcissist so he believes he's always right. 

[Dan O]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given that you state that as a fact, some evidence of that is in order. I don't recall any such.

There goes that Trump love again. Maybe a reach around is in order. Google may help jog your brain for the countless and baseless claims he's made 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Drumbuie said:

"And justice for all.." 

Nobody should be above the law. 

 

What brought down Al Capone wasn't his career as a mobster, it was tax evasion. Those who don't understand history - or accountancy - are doomed to repeat it. 

 

That's the type of opinion that is problematic in my opinion. 

I agree in some ways that seeing him get charged is a bit of the Emperor's new clothes and people see he's a mere mortal and not above the law.

But I don't see Trump as an Al Capone, not as clever or as criminal truth be told, and from the point of view of the average voter, perception is important, and opinion might sway his way, if they see that this is for offences from years ago, that wouldn't have been faced by most others. 

I would hate for this to backfire and lead to four more years. Unlikely but possible. 

I think the other charges are more likely to get him fair and square and will be seen to be fair too. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Dan O said:

There goes that Trump love again. Maybe a reach around is in order. Google may help jog your brain for the countless and baseless claims he's made 

It's not for me to spend my time researching other posters claims.

 

Try reading this at the top of the World subforum before making silly comments.

 

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source".

[thaibeachlovers]

21 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Please do try and follow what’s going on. It’s really not that difficult.
It’s not the fact he paid money to a porn star. That’s not illegal. What is illegal is that Trump falsified cheque records and ledger entries over the course of 11 months to make it appear that those payments were for "legal fees" and not reimbursements. 
This was all done in the run up to the election, where obviously an affair with a porn star might (just might) be seen as slightly negative. 
The charges are for business fraud. 

What is illegal is that it is alleged that Trump falsified cheque records and ledger entries over the course of 11 months to make it appear that those payments were for "legal fees" and not reimbursements. 

 

Fixed it for you.

 

 

[Credo]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's not for me to spend my time researching other posters claims.

 

Try reading this at the top of the World subforum before making silly comments.

 

"Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source".

That's rich coming from someone who thinks that "IMO" negates the need for any link.   

How the Durham inquiry backfired to show weaponization of Trump DoJ

When the Trump justice department tapped a US attorney to examine the origins of the FBI inquiry into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, conservatives and many Republicans hoped it would end the idea Donald Trump’s campaign was boosted by Moscow and back his charges that some FBI officials and others had conspired against him.

 

 

But instead, as the multi-year investigation winds down, it is ending with accusations that unethical actions by that special counsel – John Durham – and ex-attorney general William Barr “weaponized” the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to help Trump.

 

Former DoJ officials and top Democrats are voicing strong criticism that Durham and Barr acted improperly in the almost four-year-old inquiry, citing an in-depth New York Times story that added to other evidence the inquiry looked politically driven to placate Trump’s anger at an investigation he deemed a “witch-hunt”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/10/donald-trump-fbi-durham-investigation

 

[herfiehandbag]

2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

It certainly gives the right ammunition to suggest he is getting special treatment. That is if my interpretation of what has come out is correct. 

Well he certainly seems to expect special treatment - just perhaps not the sort he is getting!

[RichardColeman]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Or in this case 34 counts of “Falsifying business records in the first degree”

These 34 counts are basically about 9 payments - but have been made to look worse by the DA. They are like knowingly receiving an invoice, writing a cheque, having a cheque stub and entering the payment in a ledger - so 4 counts for 1 event. No sane DA would be listing charges like this - basically its like prosecuting someone for drink driving on 4 counts - 1, getting into the car drunk, starting the car up drunk, pulling away from the curb drunk and then driving drunk ! Totally insane.

 

There is no 'hard' evidence against Trump.

 

The payments were made by Trumps accountant (main witness) who said 1. Trump knew nothing about the payments and 2. said Trump paid him back in payments that he knowingly received as 'retainer' fees !

 

I support (sort of) Trump, but would support any prosecution that had a chance of being actually being won against him. 

 

The indictments continue to say he did all this to hide another criminal offense - but the DA will not say what it is or put it in evidence/charges.

 

This is a total joke of a prosecution, that statutes of limitations has expired - or the DA ran away before he would explain how it was still live.

 

I fully expect this DA to end up in a homeless shelter one day.

 

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Credo said:

That's rich coming from someone who thinks that "IMO" negates the need for any link.   

LOL.

Do you understand that when I say IMO it's an opinion, not a fact? Do you understand what an opinion is?

[stevenl]

37 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

We are all entitled to our opinions and mine on this is that is more about politics than substance.

 

On Al Jazeera they had a long item about it and had two experts on the law with opposing view points- one that Trump has a serious problem and the other that he has a very good defense against it all.

As pointed out, Trump has far more serious cases coming up in the future.

 

Seems agreed that no trial before next year sometime is happening, and no guaranteed guilty verdict and even if guilty, no guaranteed jail time.

 

Sooooo, for those wanting to see him in handcuffs and straight off to jail, LOL.

 

Notable for the complete lack of any civil disorder, despite the best efforts of certain people to ramp up the "threat" of rioting MAGA supporters.

Bet all the cops that had their leave cancelled are not impressed.

 

The most disappointed IMO- the media that were hyping it as much as they could had not much to take away- just a motorcade, a bit of VDO in the hallway and a few still photos. No rioting, no disruption ( other than that caused by the city authorities closing lots of roads ), and peaceable as any N Y day.

Trump is hyping it as much as he can, the media are falling for that.

 

Good overview of the case here 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/04/politics/takeaways-donald-trump-indictment/index.html

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, RichardColeman said:

These 34 counts are basically about 9 payments - but have been made to look worse by the DA. They are like knowingly receiving an invoice, writing a cheque, having a cheque stub and entering the payment in a ledger - so 4 counts for 1 event. No sane DA would be listing charges like this - basically its like prosecuting someone for drink driving on 4 counts - 1, getting into the car drunk, starting the car up drunk, pulling away from the curb drunk and then driving drunk ! Totally insane.

 

There is no 'hard' evidence against Trump.

 

The payments were made by Trumps accountant (main witness) who said 1. Trump knew nothing about the payments and 2. said Trump paid him back in payments that he knowingly received as 'retainer' fees !

 

I support (sort of) Trump, but would support any prosecution that had a chance of being actually being won against him. 

 

The indictments continue to say he did all this to hide another criminal offense - but the DA will not say what it is or put it in evidence/charges.

 

This is a total joke of a prosecution, that statutes of limitations has expired - or the DA ran away before he would explain how it was still live.

 

I fully expect this DA to end up in a homeless shelter one day.

 

 

 

 

 

Well said. One law expert on Al Jazeera said that it appears that all the real charges are about the payments made to Daniels and a couple more alleged pay offs were added to give the impression that it was a regular occurance.

[Skipalongcassidy]

4 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

These 34 counts are basically about 9 payments - but have been made to look worse by the DA. They are like knowingly receiving an invoice, writing a cheque, having a cheque stub and entering the payment in a ledger - so 4 counts for 1 event. No sane DA would be listing charges like this - basically its like prosecuting someone for drink driving on 4 counts - 1, getting into the car drunk, starting the car up drunk, pulling away from the curb drunk and then driving drunk ! Totally insane.

 

There is no 'hard' evidence against Trump.

 

The payments were made by Trumps accountant (main witness) who said 1. Trump knew nothing about the payments and 2. said Trump paid him back in payments that he knowingly received as 'retainer' fees !

 

I support (sort of) Trump, but would support any prosecution that had a chance of being actually being won against him. 

 

The indictments continue to say he did all this to hide another criminal offense - but the DA will not say what it is or put it in evidence/charges.

 

This is a total joke of a prosecution, that statutes of limitations has expired - or the DA ran away before he would explain how it was still live.

 

I fully expect this DA to end up in a homeless shelter one day.

 

 

 

 

 

Ak K-rob... seems like he has all the real facts and everyone else is incorrect

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Trump is hyping it as much as he can, the media are falling for that.

 

Good overview of the case here 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/04/politics/takeaways-donald-trump-indictment/index.html

LOL. Are you seriously expecting anything on CNN about Trump is unbiased?

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What is illegal is that it is alleged that Trump falsified cheque records and ledger entries over the course of 11 months to make it appear that those payments were for "legal fees" and not reimbursements. 

 

Fixed it for you.

 

 

Don’t worry, the Prosecution have the records of the alleged transactions.

[Credo]

9 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

These 34 counts are basically about 9 payments - but have been made to look worse by the DA. They are like knowingly receiving an invoice, writing a cheque, having a cheque stub and entering the payment in a ledger - so 4 counts for 1 event. No sane DA would be listing charges like this - basically its like prosecuting someone for drink driving on 4 counts - 1, getting into the car drunk, starting the car up drunk, pulling away from the curb drunk and then driving drunk ! Totally insane.

 

There is no 'hard' evidence against Trump.

 

The payments were made by Trumps accountant (main witness) who said 1. Trump knew nothing about the payments and 2. said Trump paid him back in payments that he knowingly received as 'retainer' fees !

 

I support (sort of) Trump, but would support any prosecution that had a chance of being actually being won against him. 

 

The indictments continue to say he did all this to hide another criminal offense - but the DA will not say what it is or put it in evidence/charges.

 

This is a total joke of a prosecution, that statutes of limitations has expired - or the DA ran away before he would explain how it was still live.

 

I fully expect this DA to end up in a homeless shelter one day.

 

 

New York law requires that each step in the charge be separate.  He is following the law as written, not making up new ones.

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Are you seriously expecting anything on CNN about Trump is unbiased?

Unfortunately clearly a comment without reading the provided link. Biased yes, but factual.

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Are you seriously expecting anything on CNN about Trump is unbiased?

Yet he provided a link for you to check if you wished, unlike you when you made this claim:

 

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well said. One law expert on Al Jazeera said that it appears that all the real charges are about the payments made to Daniels and a couple more alleged pay offs were added to give the impression that it was a regular occurance.

Or did you forget to put IMO this time................