6 ms·

> Washington being now safest and free of crime I'd make the case it depends on who's defining what is and is not a crime. Consider that the POTUS is a 34x co

> Washington being now safest and free of crime I'd make the case it depends on who's defining what is and is not a crime. Consider that the POTUS is a 34x convicted criminal, and yet he not only has total freedom, he literally has the highest quality personal protection ecosystem on the planet, and so much more. So, who is the criminal here? Which are the crimes? And what is _actually_ going to happen?

lisbbb 10mo ago
[flagged]
- mortehu 10mo ago
  When you're talking about changed laws, are you referring to the civil case against E. Jean Carroll? And when you are talking about "charges that the banks said weren't even an issue" are you talking about the civil fraud case? No banks were victims in the hush money case, which is where the felonies are from.
  - terminalshort 10mo ago
    There was no victim in the hush money case which is why the prosecution was clearly political. Even Andrew Cuomo, Democrat and former NY DA, said that those charges never would have been filed against anyone other than Trump.
    - ben_w 10mo ago
      What made it a felony under New York law is the claim that the falsified records were intended to conceal another crime, specifically efforts to influence an election. To a decent approximation, if Trump had not been running for office when he did this, then it wouldn't have been a crime. But then, he wouldn't have cared to cover it up. Covering up that he got off with a porn star isn't the problem. Like Bill Clinton, it's the actual particulars of the coverup rather than generically that there was a desire to cover up an extramarital affair itself that's the problem.
      - terminalshort 10mo ago
        Technically opening up your neighbor's mailbox is a felony. But in practice you will never be charged for it. Same thing with the hush money case. There is no law that makes covering up an affair illegal while running for office and Trump was not charged with any campaign finance violations. He was charged with the vague crime of "falsifying business records" which, while technically illegal in all cases, in practice is only ever charged if there is a victim who has been defrauded by the falsification. In this case there was none. The Clinton case is exactly the same concept and is also 100% a politically motivated prosecution. So is the Hunter Biden gun charge. Nobody else ever would have been charged for that.
        lovich 10mo ago
        Yea, I read through the court cases. He got 3rd party valuations on property and just decided to change it on his whim to get a better deal on loans. I understand that the rich are usually not prosecuted for this fact but if one of us plebs did that and the banks found out, they’d be all over us for fraud.
        terminalshort 10mo ago
        No, they really wouldn't. People do this all the time. Take the example of the (politically motivated) charges against Leticia James for mortgage fraud. Everybody lies about the house being their primary residence to get a better interest rate and nobody who doesn't piss off politically powerful people are ever charged for it. Fraud is essentially never charged if the loan is paid back.
        ben_w 10mo ago
        From what I've heard, "primary residence" is a different issue, something along the line of US banks asking this at time of issue and never checking about updates. Saying the property is worth more or less than it is… I don't know how this would even happen. The countries in which I've looked at mortgages, the banks don't give an option for a self-assessment. Is the US not like that? Or is it specifically a thing for getting a loan secured on a property that you already own rather than a new purchase?
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- jeltz 10mo ago
  You are confusing different cases. The one he was convicted for was falsifying business records. That was an open and shut case where no banks were involved and no law has to be changed. There were a couple of dpdgy cases against him but he was not convinced of any of them.
  - tim333 10mo ago
    I challenge you to name the crime. "Falsifying business records" is not a felony in NY.
    - ben_w 10mo ago
      Penal Law Section 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony. - https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_175.10 https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_175.1... Now, I'm not a lawyer, but that does rather look like you need to eat humble pie.
      - tim333 10mo ago
        Me neither but I guess so. Falsifying business records with intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime. The 'another crime' was never specified. I guess he joins all the other people convicted of falsifying business records with an intent to commit another crime unspecified. It does seem a bit made up for him. I'm sure lots of people have errors in their business reporting and how do you defend against being accused of an unspecified crime? I'm not really a Trump fan but I think it would have been much better to prosecute him for something real like trying to steal the 2020 election than the above silliness that was just ignored and let him get back into office.
    - magicalhippo 10mo ago
      I'm a Norwegian without direct skin in the game, but according to these[1][2] sources it was "§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree"[3], stated to be a class E felony in New York. Is this not correct? [1]: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/05/qa-on-trumps-criminal-conviction/ https://www.factcheck.org/2024/05/qa-on-trumps-criminal-conv... [2]: https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-tr... [3]: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
- blurbleblurble 10mo ago
  Get real
carlosjobim 10mo ago
There are different categories of crimes and violations. You can call it "The penal code", "Common law", or "Crimes" (as opposed to violations). And in almost all countries in the world the list is the same and has been for hundreds of years: Murder, robbery, theft, rape, battery and so on. Do you think people walking the streets of Washington DC are less safe because of crimes such as those Trump was convicted of? Or are their main concern murder, robbery, theft, rape, battery and such? Edit: Of course my comment nets a hacker down vote instead of a discussion, but for example Nordic countries make a difference between "crimes" and "illegal things" in their laws. And so do South American countries. The United States has the "felonies" category, which is very comparable. But they also include victimless and non-serious crimes such as tax evasion and copyright infringement.
- ruszki 10mo ago
  Law and your list are not the same. Trump definitely killed probably 100s of thousands of people, with how he handled COVID, and USAID. The law doesn’t consider those as murders, but it’s quite obvious that they were. The rape on your list is even funnier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._T... Oh sorry, sexual assault. And theft is the funniest, because he was convicted basically for stealing from his companies.
- ben_w 10mo ago
  Trump has lost lawsuits related to sexual abuse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._T... Also, the laws of the world have definitely not had the same list for hundreds of years, and the old ideas of those things are somewhat different to the modern versions. For example, for most of those hundreds of years, "rape" wasn't just about intercourse, it was about kidnapping (same etymology as "rapture": snatch and carry off). This is specifically why spousal rape, in the modern usage of the term, needed to be added to the statue books: little to no thought given to the idea of a husband kidnapping their own wife. Also on that list for hundreds of years: charging interest on loans. Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" quote sounds like an admission of sexual battery to me. Now, it's important to note that I'm not a lawyer, but here's the thing: lawyers have also said this about that quote. Even if you ignore all the stuff about Epstein, even if you limit yourself to just that self-chosen set of goalposts, he's a wrong-un.
eric_cc 10mo ago
> Consider that the POTUS is a 34x convicted criminal To be fair, they were political persecutions and show trials just so that people like you could write that sentence and help the Democrat Party keep the presidency. I’m not saying Trump is innocent in life, so don’t mistaken what I am saying for that. I am clearly and specifically saying that the 34 convictions are a joke and that only the gullible and the zealots buy into them.
- cauch 10mo ago
  Isn't the 34 counts due to the fact that the trial concluded that Trump paid Daniels via Cohen but hidden the payment as "legal expenses" and therefore falsified 34 different documents? It is not like they invented extra fake actions that Trump did not do, it is all part of the same fraud. Either you recognize that Trump was guilty in this affair, and he gets X counts of fraud, X being a large number due to the number of document involved (and maybe someone can argue on the exact count, but 34 or 28 is not a big difference, so it is a different argument that move the goalpost), or Trump was not guilty at all. You cannot really say "well, Trump is guilty for the first 2 counts, but then not the 32 other counts": how can he be guilty in one document and not be guilty in the other which is basically identical except for the date? Also, isn't a large number of counts of conviction pretty common in case of fraud? (for exactly the reason I've given: the falsification of each document counts for 1 count) People who claims that 34 counts of conviction is the result of a political persecutions seems to have no idea that 1) this is usually how it works, this is usually what people get for fraud, there was no special treatment for Trump, 2) pretending that it was maybe 1 or 2 counts of felony but not 34 does not make any sense, 3) even if they wanted, it would not have been possible for the trial to conclude "just 1 or 2 counts", and it is therefore ridiculous to pretend that this number is the result of a political bias where they choose the higher number just to be mean toward Trump.
- BloodyIron 10mo ago
  > and help the Democrat Party keep the presidencty You're writing your own narrative there bud. I'm not even a USA citizen, I have literally zero ability to influence the USA electorate to any degree. So cut the rhetoric, it's tiring and frankly destructive to real discussion. I'm neither gullible nor a zealot. Trump has a long standing history of ripping people off for many millions of dollars, regardless of the currency. There's an endless supply of receipts, give me a break. And that's long before we even consider that he's literally operating illegal wars (not approved by congress), which _is_ breaking USA law.
xdennis 10mo ago
The 34 crimes are these: - falsifying business records - 1st degree - falsifying business records - 1st degree - falsifying business records - 1st degree ... - falsifying business records - 1st degree https://www.scribd.com/document/737791944/Trump-verdict-sheet https://www.scribd.com/document/737791944/Trump-verdict-shee... He was charged 34 times for the same payment, multiple times per check, because they were entered as payment for lawyer instead of hush money for porn star. "Falsifying business records" is a not a crime, unless it's done in the pursuit of another crime. The other crime was trying to influence the election (literally his job as a candidate). This is despite the fact that the books were cooked as payment to lawyer in 2017, after the election. Alvin Bragg, the person who convicted Trump, specifically ran on prosecuting Trump. It was entirely a political prosecution. If Trump had paid cash, he would have 10000x counts against him, one for each dollar bill. 34x of 4 years means he could have been convicted for a maximum of 134 years. One count for 4 years wasn't enough, they had to give him more time than some serial killers. The judge specifically postponed the conviction after the election to see if he should receive prison terms or not. He absolutely would have had he lost.

lisbbb 10mo ago

[flagged]

mortehu 10mo ago
When you're talking about changed laws, are you referring to the civil case against E. Jean Carroll? And when you are talking about "charges that the banks said weren't even an issue" are you talking about the civil fraud case? No banks were victims in the hush money case, which is where the felonies are from.
- terminalshort 10mo ago
  There was no victim in the hush money case which is why the prosecution was clearly political. Even Andrew Cuomo, Democrat and former NY DA, said that those charges never would have been filed against anyone other than Trump.
  - ben_w 10mo ago
    What made it a felony under New York law is the claim that the falsified records were intended to conceal another crime, specifically efforts to influence an election. To a decent approximation, if Trump had not been running for office when he did this, then it wouldn't have been a crime. But then, he wouldn't have cared to cover it up. Covering up that he got off with a porn star isn't the problem. Like Bill Clinton, it's the actual particulars of the coverup rather than generically that there was a desire to cover up an extramarital affair itself that's the problem.
    - terminalshort 10mo ago
      Technically opening up your neighbor's mailbox is a felony. But in practice you will never be charged for it. Same thing with the hush money case. There is no law that makes covering up an affair illegal while running for office and Trump was not charged with any campaign finance violations. He was charged with the vague crime of "falsifying business records" which, while technically illegal in all cases, in practice is only ever charged if there is a victim who has been defrauded by the falsification. In this case there was none. The Clinton case is exactly the same concept and is also 100% a politically motivated prosecution. So is the Hunter Biden gun charge. Nobody else ever would have been charged for that.
      - lovich 10mo ago
        Yea, I read through the court cases. He got 3rd party valuations on property and just decided to change it on his whim to get a better deal on loans. I understand that the rich are usually not prosecuted for this fact but if one of us plebs did that and the banks found out, they’d be all over us for fraud.
        terminalshort 10mo ago
        No, they really wouldn't. People do this all the time. Take the example of the (politically motivated) charges against Leticia James for mortgage fraud. Everybody lies about the house being their primary residence to get a better interest rate and nobody who doesn't piss off politically powerful people are ever charged for it. Fraud is essentially never charged if the loan is paid back.
        ben_w 10mo ago
        From what I've heard, "primary residence" is a different issue, something along the line of US banks asking this at time of issue and never checking about updates. Saying the property is worth more or less than it is… I don't know how this would even happen. The countries in which I've looked at mortgages, the banks don't give an option for a self-assessment. Is the US not like that? Or is it specifically a thing for getting a loan secured on a property that you already own rather than a new purchase?
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
jeltz 10mo ago
You are confusing different cases. The one he was convicted for was falsifying business records. That was an open and shut case where no banks were involved and no law has to be changed. There were a couple of dpdgy cases against him but he was not convinced of any of them.
- tim333 10mo ago
  I challenge you to name the crime. "Falsifying business records" is not a felony in NY.
  - ben_w 10mo ago
    Penal Law Section 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony. - https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_175.10 https://newyork.public.law/laws/n.y._penal_law_section_175.1... Now, I'm not a lawyer, but that does rather look like you need to eat humble pie.
    - tim333 10mo ago
      Me neither but I guess so. Falsifying business records with intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime. The 'another crime' was never specified. I guess he joins all the other people convicted of falsifying business records with an intent to commit another crime unspecified. It does seem a bit made up for him. I'm sure lots of people have errors in their business reporting and how do you defend against being accused of an unspecified crime? I'm not really a Trump fan but I think it would have been much better to prosecute him for something real like trying to steal the 2020 election than the above silliness that was just ignored and let him get back into office.
  - magicalhippo 10mo ago
    I'm a Norwegian without direct skin in the game, but according to these[1][2] sources it was "§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree"[3], stated to be a class E felony in New York. Is this not correct? [1]: https://www.factcheck.org/2024/05/qa-on-trumps-criminal-conviction/ https://www.factcheck.org/2024/05/qa-on-trumps-criminal-conv... [2]: https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-trial-34-counts https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/g-s1-1848/trump-hush-money-tr... [3]: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10
blurbleblurble 10mo ago
Get real

carlosjobim 10mo ago

There are different categories of crimes and violations. You can call it "The penal code", "Common law", or "Crimes" (as opposed to violations). And in almost all countries in the world the list is the same and has been for hundreds of years: Murder, robbery, theft, rape, battery and so on. Do you think people walking the streets of Washington DC are less safe because of crimes such as those Trump was convicted of? Or are their main concern murder, robbery, theft, rape, battery and such? Edit: Of course my comment nets a hacker down vote instead of a discussion, but for example Nordic countries make a difference between "crimes" and "illegal things" in their laws. And so do South American countries. The United States has the "felonies" category, which is very comparable. But they also include victimless and non-serious crimes such as tax evasion and copyright infringement.

ruszki 10mo ago
Law and your list are not the same. Trump definitely killed probably 100s of thousands of people, with how he handled COVID, and USAID. The law doesn’t consider those as murders, but it’s quite obvious that they were. The rape on your list is even funnier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._T... Oh sorry, sexual assault. And theft is the funniest, because he was convicted basically for stealing from his companies.
ben_w 10mo ago
Trump has lost lawsuits related to sexual abuse: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._T... Also, the laws of the world have definitely not had the same list for hundreds of years, and the old ideas of those things are somewhat different to the modern versions. For example, for most of those hundreds of years, "rape" wasn't just about intercourse, it was about kidnapping (same etymology as "rapture": snatch and carry off). This is specifically why spousal rape, in the modern usage of the term, needed to be added to the statue books: little to no thought given to the idea of a husband kidnapping their own wife. Also on that list for hundreds of years: charging interest on loans. Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" quote sounds like an admission of sexual battery to me. Now, it's important to note that I'm not a lawyer, but here's the thing: lawyers have also said this about that quote. Even if you ignore all the stuff about Epstein, even if you limit yourself to just that self-chosen set of goalposts, he's a wrong-un.

eric_cc 10mo ago

> Consider that the POTUS is a 34x convicted criminal To be fair, they were political persecutions and show trials just so that people like you could write that sentence and help the Democrat Party keep the presidency. I’m not saying Trump is innocent in life, so don’t mistaken what I am saying for that. I am clearly and specifically saying that the 34 convictions are a joke and that only the gullible and the zealots buy into them.

cauch 10mo ago
Isn't the 34 counts due to the fact that the trial concluded that Trump paid Daniels via Cohen but hidden the payment as "legal expenses" and therefore falsified 34 different documents? It is not like they invented extra fake actions that Trump did not do, it is all part of the same fraud. Either you recognize that Trump was guilty in this affair, and he gets X counts of fraud, X being a large number due to the number of document involved (and maybe someone can argue on the exact count, but 34 or 28 is not a big difference, so it is a different argument that move the goalpost), or Trump was not guilty at all. You cannot really say "well, Trump is guilty for the first 2 counts, but then not the 32 other counts": how can he be guilty in one document and not be guilty in the other which is basically identical except for the date? Also, isn't a large number of counts of conviction pretty common in case of fraud? (for exactly the reason I've given: the falsification of each document counts for 1 count) People who claims that 34 counts of conviction is the result of a political persecutions seems to have no idea that 1) this is usually how it works, this is usually what people get for fraud, there was no special treatment for Trump, 2) pretending that it was maybe 1 or 2 counts of felony but not 34 does not make any sense, 3) even if they wanted, it would not have been possible for the trial to conclude "just 1 or 2 counts", and it is therefore ridiculous to pretend that this number is the result of a political bias where they choose the higher number just to be mean toward Trump.
BloodyIron 10mo ago
> and help the Democrat Party keep the presidencty You're writing your own narrative there bud. I'm not even a USA citizen, I have literally zero ability to influence the USA electorate to any degree. So cut the rhetoric, it's tiring and frankly destructive to real discussion. I'm neither gullible nor a zealot. Trump has a long standing history of ripping people off for many millions of dollars, regardless of the currency. There's an endless supply of receipts, give me a break. And that's long before we even consider that he's literally operating illegal wars (not approved by congress), which _is_ breaking USA law.

xdennis 10mo ago

The 34 crimes are these: - falsifying business records - 1st degree - falsifying business records - 1st degree - falsifying business records - 1st degree ... - falsifying business records - 1st degree https://www.scribd.com/document/737791944/Trump-verdict-sheet https://www.scribd.com/document/737791944/Trump-verdict-shee... He was charged 34 times for the same payment, multiple times per check, because they were entered as payment for lawyer instead of hush money for porn star. "Falsifying business records" is a not a crime, unless it's done in the pursuit of another crime. The other crime was trying to influence the election (literally his job as a candidate). This is despite the fact that the books were cooked as payment to lawyer in 2017, after the election. Alvin Bragg, the person who convicted Trump, specifically ran on prosecuting Trump. It was entirely a political prosecution. If Trump had paid cash, he would have 10000x counts against him, one for each dollar bill. 34x of 4 years means he could have been convicted for a maximum of 134 years. One count for 4 years wasn't enough, they had to give him more time than some serial killers. The judge specifically postponed the conviction after the election to see if he should receive prison terms or not. He absolutely would have had he lost.