I thought he'd probably walk on these charges, but from what I'm reading, guilty on all 34 counts.
He f*ucked then paid a porn star to keep her quiet. He then lied about how the payment was 'documented'....
How do they get 34 counts out of that.......3 or 4 seems closer to the mark.... 
34 counts is one count for each individual document referring to a payment to Daniels.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-found-guilty-on-all-34-counts-of-falsifying-business-records-heres-a-breakdown-211334652.html. Each count by the way carries a maximum sentence of 4 years hence the 136 year maximum sentence talked about (won't happen of course).
I'm certainly not a Trump fan but there are several odd things about the case:
1) I can't find out how the judge was appointed and who by. It is the same judge who found the Trump Organisation guilty of over-stating its office space recently. He definitely wasn't randomly selected for this case.
2) The judge is technically conflicted - he donated funds to the democrats, although trivial amounts it is still a breach of judicial rules.
3) The crime is falsification of business records which is a misdemeanor-level offense in New York, punishable by a fine. However, because Trump falsified the records
in a bid to violate federal election laws the crimes have been elevated to felonies. Normally state-level courts like New York do not have the jurisdiction to try felonies (federal crimes). So it is odd that the case didn't go to a federal court. As Trump says only 6% of New Yorkers support him.
4) It is odd that the judge ruled that the prosecution did not have to identify exactly which election laws have been broken. Presumably it is claimed that monies were spent on Daniels that should have been accounted for in the restricted budget for election campaigns, i.e. breach of election spending limits. However trump could have spent (further) thouands on teeth whitening, that could be said to be money spent in furtherance of his campaign in excess of the campaign budget and hidden from the campaign accounts but it wouldn't stand up in court. The judge refused this line of argument.
5) The judge also refused the line of argument that the case is “novel, unusual, or unprecedented” although it unarguably is. There is no other similar case.
6) The judge refused the line of argument that this is unfairly directed at Trump. Weirdly in US law even if you are guilty of something, if others get away with it all the time and you have been picked on unfairly, the prosecution can be thrown out even though you did it. Such 'Selective Prosecution' is very rarely proven admittedly but should the judge have dismissed any discussion of this?
Author
Topic: Trump guilty (Read 7647 times)