Trump Money Trail: Justice Served

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty, Guilty,

Didn't find your answer?

I have been closely following the intricate trail of Trump's financial dealings, and I am absolutely pleased to see justice finally prevail. The recent verdict, handed down by 12 independent jurors, finding him guilty, has truly made my day!

The detailed investigation into his financial conduct has been a rollercoaster of revelations, and this outcome reaffirms my faith in the US legal system. It is a significant moment, for the integrity of financial accountability and transparency.

Replies (44)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By johnthegood
31st May 2024 09:11

I would hold that thought for now - all that has happened is a guilty verdict, justice is a whole different ball game, I expect this to run and run

Thanks (4)
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
31st May 2024 09:16

You have to hand it to Trump that he has got is supporters to believe its all rigged, and he really is the messiah.

He even has the bible belt wrapped up. Despite being the least godly person you could imagine.

If he gets in again, he is going to completely destroy what is left of the US democracy.

Thanks (4)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
03rd Jun 2024 09:43

Not the Messiah (He's a very naughty boy)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By bernard michael
31st May 2024 09:40

It will make no difference. The US electorate are again going to elect him as their leader (according to all my US clients) and the world will have to put up with both him and Putin trying to score points off each other.
However on the plus side he may deport an ex member of the Royal family (perhaps to Nigeria or Malta ..........................but anywhere please except England

Thanks (2)
Replying to bernard michael:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
31st May 2024 12:33

Its truly astounding how good Trump is at making people belive anything he says and nothing he ever does from bribery, sexual assult, slander, vote rigging, financial crimes matters.

As he says himself, he could shoot somone and they wouldnt care. He would make out some reason or other why it was his right to do so.

Thanks (3)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
By Ruddles
31st May 2024 15:00

ireallyshouldknowthisbut wrote:

Its truly astounding how good Trump is at making people belive anything


It says as much about the mental health of his supporters as it does about his own ability to divert and mislead. Has anyone ever done an average IQ comparison between the red and the blue camps?
Thanks (0)
Replying to ireallyshouldknowthisbut:
avatar
By FactChecker
31st May 2024 15:53

I recall him saying proudly (on film and reported at the time - just before the last election) something equally crass, but more likely to offend than the concept in the USA of shooting someone, along the lines of women enjoyed him grabbing them most indelicately ...

... and still millions of women (as well as men) vote for him!

Thanks (3)
Replying to bernard michael:
RLI
By lionofludesch
31st May 2024 21:55

bernard michael wrote:

However on the plus side he may deport an ex member of the Royal family (perhaps to Nigeria or Malta ..........................but anywhere please except England

Anywhere else in the UK will be fine, I suppose.

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
01st Jun 2024 12:48

That is very unfair on the Welsh.
Still, if the Scots want to leave then maybe they would like a Nigerian for their new Queen.
I am sure that Northern Ireland would love to have 'Irish' Biden as new resident.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
RLI
By lionofludesch
03rd Jun 2024 10:01

Paul Crowley wrote:

That is very unfair on the Welsh.
Still, if the Scots want to leave then maybe they would like a Nigerian for their new Queen.
I am sure that Northern Ireland would love to have 'Irish' Biden as new resident.

I was commenting on Bernard's implication.

Thanks (1)
Replying to bernard michael:
Melchett
By thestudyman
03rd Jun 2024 09:35

It will make no difference to (I would guess) 8-9 out of 10 of his voters. But it would make a difference to swing voters and independents, and that could be all the difference. It is uncomfortable how much leaders are idolised compared to UK politics.

Thanks (1)
Replying to thestudyman:
RLI
By lionofludesch
03rd Jun 2024 09:55

thestudyman wrote:

It will make no difference to (I would guess) 8-9 out of 10 of his voters. But it would make a difference to swing voters and independents, and that could be all the difference. It is uncomfortable how much leaders are idolised compared to UK politics.

Joe Biden is idolised?

Maggie Thatcher wasn't?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Open all hours
31st May 2024 09:42

Appeal x 34

Thanks (1)
Replying to Open all hours:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
31st May 2024 10:41

Trump will be appealing.
The hooker just keeps looking for more money.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By FactChecker
31st May 2024 15:47

That would read equally validly if you reversed the sentiments ...

Trump just keeps looking for more money.
The hooker will be appealing.

Thanks (3)
Replying to FactChecker:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
01st Jun 2024 13:08

I genuinely still fail to understand what exactly was the crime. As I understand it, the falsification of records was only a crime ( at the level required) if it was to cover up a crime. Was there really a crime of paying the tart to shut up about having sex ?
Non Disclosure agreements are quite normal in the US. Are NDAs now a criminal activity? She broke the agreement and may have been financially encouraged to do so.
We had a crooked Chancellor of the Exchequer that got caught with tax irregularities and nothing happened.
Trump may be a lying politician, but I always considered that was a compulsory attribute for the office of POTUS.

Thanks (2)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
David Winch
By David Winch
01st Jun 2024 13:17

It was not a crime to pay Stormy Daniels to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
However if the payment made to her was a 'campaign contribution' for the Presidential election then, in view of the amount paid, it was an unlawful contribution. For that reason it could be relevant as to whether Mr Trump was seeking to avoid embarrassment in front of his wife and family (i.e. not a campaign contribution) or embarrassment in front of the electorate.
There was also a suggestion that tax relief had been claimed when the expenditure was not allowable for tax purposes (but I do not recall that being spelled out and evidenced in the trial).
David

Thanks (1)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
03rd Jun 2024 02:58

It was not a campaign contribution.
That specific had already been investigated, per Nate the Lawyer.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By FactChecker
01st Jun 2024 14:02

IANAL and I barely paid any attention to the trial but, as David points out (and despite the tone of much media reporting), the felonious acts were NOT whatever he got up to with Stormy or that he paid her to go away ... and it's not even the typically Trumpian way in which he attempted to conceal that payment from prying eyes.

As I understand it, like so many people who really believe they are invincible and on the side of right (with a large dollop of 'the means justifies the end' thrown in for good measure), he didn't know where to stop* ... and so (apparently deliberately) 'mis-coded' the payments - and, worse still, did so in a way that broke election funding laws as well as accounting/tax laws AND ordered other people to lie on his behalf (conspiracy).

* = Those with better knowledge of criminal law than me (i.e. most people) are free to correct my misinterpretations ... but if I'm right the Trump case is tangentially, at least, related to the Jeffrey Archer caseS:
- scandal when Daily Star publishes the 'scoop' in which a prostitute alleges that Archer was a client;
- Archer denies it and paper prints retraction;
- nevertheless Archer sues paper for libel and was awarded damages of £500,000 and more still in costs from the Star newspaper;
* Fourteen years later ...
- Lord Archer is jailed for four years after being found guilty of lying and cheating in the 1987 libel case!

Thanks (3)
David Winch
By David Winch
31st May 2024 10:19

As I understand it, under the law which operates in New York (which has important differences from UK law) it was necessary for the prosecution in this case to prove not only that the accounting entries were false and were made dishonestly, but that this was done to cover up another crime. It was that last element which apparently was the weakest link in the prosecution case.
But instead of focusing on that weakness the defence seemed to focus on attempting to discredit a couple of prosecution witnesses - one of whom, whilst arguably photogenic, had nothing to do with the accounting records or the other crime.
It was, of course, the accounting records which were the really interesting part of the case.
David

Thanks (2)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
01st Jun 2024 13:17

Whoops
Just made a similar type comment just above yours.
The case does seem to be weak to me.

Thanks (0)
VAT
By Jason Croke
31st May 2024 10:34

Who hasn't given a bag of cash to their lawyer to pay off a secret lover and get the lawyer to raise an invoice for the cash and call it professional services, so that you can treat it as a tax deductible expense?

As for this being a triumph for financial integrity and accountability, I don't think it is a great advertisement at all, his financial dealings were cleverly hidden and obscured before and during his Presidency and had he not created that insurrection on the White House lawns following his election defeat, nobody would be any the wiser as to his tax affairs.

The lesson here is the authorities are generally blind to sophisticated tax planning, but don't invite people to overthrow the government, never a good move to enrage the legislature.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Jason Croke:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
31st May 2024 12:00

I recall Jeffrey Archer was caught for doing something similar. Most politicians are basically bent, born liars.

As for Trump, you know somone's highly dodgy indeed when Putin is their best pal.

Posted at 11:3111:31
Russia accuses White House of 'eliminating' rivals
There's been some reaction coming out of Moscow to Donald Trump's conviction.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says the Trump conviction shows the White House is "eliminating its political rivals by all possible legal and illegal means".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-69069142

Thanks (1)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Intercity
By Mr Hankey
31st May 2024 12:23

"Most politicians are basically bent, born liars."

Quite. Bill Clinton's infamous televised statement "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" springs to mind!

Thanks (2)
avatar
By carnmores
31st May 2024 12:16

I would take issue with the American justice system where judges are elected with clear political bias in a number of cases. the distinction between a misdemeanour and a felony is a thin line and I believe that Obama was convicted on a similar charge as misdemeanour. this is clearly politically driven and unliklely to cost Trump votes

Thanks (2)
Replying to carnmores:
By ireallyshouldknowthisbut
31st May 2024 12:30

LMAO I must have missed the bit where Obama was put on trial and convicted of paying hush money to and claiming it as a tax deduction.

Thanks (2)
Replying to carnmores:
avatar
By Bobbo
31st May 2024 14:28

carnmores wrote:

I believe that Obama was convicted on a similar charge as misdemeanour.

Gonna substantiate this assertion with any sources?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Bobbo:
avatar
By AdamJones82
31st May 2024 16:26

No, he'll just spout slander like the one he worships

Thanks (0)
Replying to carnmores:
avatar
By AdamJones82
31st May 2024 16:25

Oh dear, we've got a redneck in our midst

Thanks (0)
Replying to AdamJones82:
avatar
By carnmores
31st May 2024 17:33

the first part of my comment was fair the second was fake news and in you went, that is exactly the sort of nonsense that is prevalent in US

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/2626809/list-...

redneck I don't think so

Thanks (1)
Replying to carnmores:
avatar
By FactChecker
31st May 2024 19:10

The Washington Examiner newspaper was founded by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, and it was owned until 2010 by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate founded by Moon.
It is currently owned by Operations Holdings, which is a part of the Unification Church movement.

So, irrespective of it's admitted 'right-wing lean', the foundations aren't related to established truths in any obvious way.

Thanks (5)
Replying to FactChecker:
avatar
By AdamJones82
31st May 2024 22:07

you can't tell Trump supporters, they're continually blind to any semblance of truth

Thanks (0)
Replying to FactChecker:
avatar
By carnmores
01st Jun 2024 17:37

I know this i was trying to emphasise the prevalence of fake news

Thanks (0)
Replying to carnmores:
avatar
By FactChecker
01st Jun 2024 17:51

Ah, apologies ... it can be hard to tell in this medium when a sardonic tone (or indeed any sort of nuance) is intended - a 'fault' from which I've unintentionally generated much heat occasionally when attempting a dry tone!

The problem is that the simple phrase 'fake news' has now been hijacked by the Donald as a kind of catchphrase, so when used as pure description is capable of suggesting what a speaker may not have remotely intended.

FWIW this is why I usually avoid political topics (remembering when it was up there in pole position alongside religion and sex as unsuitable topics for public discourse) ... but with so many insane elections in one year it's hard to keep the lips buttoned!

Thanks (2)
By Ruddles
31st May 2024 21:43

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again but I do feel sorry for the US electorate. Some choice. Although ours isn’t much better.

Thanks (2)
By Ruddles
31st May 2024 21:50

FirstTab wrote:

I have been closely following the intricate trail of Trump's financial dealings, and I am absolutely pleased to see justice finally prevail. The recent verdict, handed down by 12 independent jurors, finding him guilty, has truly made my day!

The detailed investigation into his financial conduct has been a rollercoaster of revelations, and this outcome reaffirms my faith in the US legal system. It is a significant moment, for the integrity of financial accountability and transparency.


I didn’t realise that you had been in court to hear all the testimony and evidence.
Thanks (0)
Replying to Ruddles:
avatar
By FactChecker
01st Jun 2024 09:16

Aside of the court case revelations, my big take away was hearing the 'thoughts of voters' interviewed just after the verdict announcement.
Amongst the usual plethora of fairly mindless soundbites, the one that stuck out:
"Voting for a convicted felon? Well there's a LOT of us in the same position!"

Trump has found 'his people'.

Thanks (4)
Replying to FactChecker:
avatar
By Paul Crowley
01st Jun 2024 13:35

I think the way Americans will react will be such that the case will be seen as politically driven and increase the vote for Trump

Obama telling UK voters how to vote had the same effect.
US politicians seem oblivious to how ordinary voters respond to their antics.

Boris was born in the US, maybe he should try out next time around.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
avatar
By AdamJones82
01st Jun 2024 18:14

They're welcome to him. They also did us a favour of taking James Corden - at least for a few years

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
01st Jun 2024 14:31

Just for fun I considered what the sentencing might be if the defendant had been convicted of equivalent offences of 'false accounting' in England.
There are Sentencing Council Guidelines which judges in England follow. One of the issues they have to address is 'culpability'. The guideline applicable to 'false accounting' gives examples of what may indicate 'high culpability'. These are
A leading role where offending is part of a group activity
Involvement of others through pressure, influence
Abuse of position of power or trust or responsibility
Sophisticated nature of offence/significant planning
Fraudulent activity conducted over sustained period of time
Large number of victims
Deliberately targeting victim on basis of vulnerability.

Obviously not all of them apply in this case, but many of them do.
Amongst listed aggravating factors are
Established evidence of community/wider impact
Failure to comply with current court orders.

On the other hand mitigating factors can include
No previous convictions
Remorse
Good character and/or exemplary conduct.

Account is also taken of the amounts involved.
There is also a reduction of sentence where the defendant pleads guilty.
Taking all these factors into account I don't think any objection could sensibly be made in Mr Trump's case to a custodial sentence somewhere in the range of 18 months to 3 years, with the possibility of that being a suspended sentence if it were 2 years or less.
David

Thanks (0)
Replying to davidwinch:
avatar
By FactChecker
01st Jun 2024 15:29

Love the way in which, David, you list the theoretical potential for "mitigating factors" in order to give a complete picture ... whilst presumably ruminating on whether even the Donald would have sufficient chutzpah to claim any as applicable to him!

Thanks (2)
Replying to FactChecker:
David Winch
By David Winch
01st Jun 2024 15:47

Well he scores 10/10 on "no previous convictions". But 0/10 on remorse!
David

Thanks (1)
avatar
By frankfx
01st Jun 2024 15:03

For some light relief on a rigged trial and summing up.

I give you Peter Cook.

https://youtu.be/Kyos-M48B8U?si=0IZmczPlhwx8ZoNg

Thanks (1)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
03rd Jun 2024 09:53

I do so like that this case just reinforces that in politics it is usually never the first action that trips the politician into trouble (having a young lady hit one's posterior with a rolled up magazine) it is always the attempted cover up where they come a cropper- it is like they start to believe in their own invincibility and thereby fall.

Sophocles and Shakespeare had it spot on re the mighty and their failures, the exposure of their fatal flaws.

Thanks (0)