-1
BumbleHill -1 points ago +1 / -2

What?

He claimed he resigned from the company, then continued to run his same role as before with never filing the change of executive leadership paperwork in those different states where the companies operate.

It's a pretty simple concept, even you should be able to understand it.

-1
BumbleHill -1 points ago +1 / -2

I'd look twice at that transfer, every city he was supposed to file paperwork in to do the transfer said the transfer never happened, Trump even publicly said in a bunch of rallies he never did the transfer. Glenn Greenwald did some reporting on it in July of 2020.

-4
BumbleHill -4 points ago +1 / -5

There are 10000 hits, have a look dude. Also, looking at the grandfather's wife of the guys wife isn't really evidence of anything. My grandfather worked for Pfizer, doesn't mean I suck their dicks.

-1
BumbleHill -1 points ago +1 / -2

We won't know that until the evidence is listed. Right now that is all sealed until the trial begins and the defense can see it all. The defense hasn't seen any evidence in this case yet, so anything they say is kind of premature.

0
BumbleHill 0 points ago +1 / -1

Except he never filed the proper paperwork in any of those cities. I don't blame him, I wouldn't either, but facts are facts. Glenn Greenwald reported on it, search the intercept for July of 2020.

-1
BumbleHill -1 points ago +1 / -2

In the statement of facts it says Trump paid some Doorman 30k to keep quiet about him having a baby with some random woman. Who knows. I'd never heard that case before.

-1
BumbleHill -1 points ago +1 / -2

I get what you're saying, read the SoF, it goes into much more detail, that was just the example I was giving. They also cite several times Trump said publicly in rally's that he wasn't giving up control of the Trump Organization and took calls and operated as an executive.

9
BumbleHill 9 points ago +10 / -1

Searching for his wife's name isn't what HE used to be called. The person Jack Smith replaced is David Rivera. Look up Rivera and what his crimes were. It's interesting.

-3
BumbleHill -3 points ago +2 / -5

When I search their names I get more than 10k results: https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul+Chevigny+and+Jeffrey+Smilow&oq=Paul+Chevigny+and+Jeffrey+Smilow&aqs=chrome..69i57j33i160.455j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1

You're using a Boolean limiter which forces the search engine to only look for their names exactly as you wrote them in the exact order. So, of course it's limited.

-1
BumbleHill -1 points ago +1 / -2

The case says he had a kid with her!

-2
BumbleHill -2 points ago +1 / -3

I think this case is stupid, but I want this to be factual.

The payments happened before that time, the bookkeeping happened in Feb 2017, the crime is basically for cooking the books and covering up what the payments were for, that's why they are for while he was in office. The reason he can be charged is because he never fully signed over the Trump Organization and he was still signing checks and acting as an executive.

-1
BumbleHill -1 points ago +1 / -2

That's not really how the law works.

Trump does not need to be present in NY to falsify records or have his employees falsify records. And, his employee, Michael Cohen, already plead guilty and was convicted of falsifying records for the Trump Organization at Trump's behalf during that time frame.

I agree these charges are stupid, but not for that reason. Capone was convicted of tax fraud in DC and he never lived or worked there.

-1
BumbleHill -1 points ago +1 / -2

In the statement of facts, you can find it here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23741892/donald-j-trump-sof.pdf - they explain he was still signing checks and attending meetings at the Trump Organization, so he was still acting as an executive there. He also apparently never filed the transfer paperwork properly? I dunno.

-1
BumbleHill -1 points ago +1 / -2

You need to read the Statement of Facts, they never go into detail in the indictments, you can find it here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23741892/donald-j-trump-sof.pdf

-1
BumbleHill -1 points ago +1 / -2

In the Statement of Facts - which is a document that always accompanies an indictment case, you can find it here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23741892/donald-j-trump-sof.pdf -- Trump personally signed over 50 checks for the Trump Organization during that time which is proof he was still acting as an executive in some capacity for the Trump Organization.

I would read the Statement of Facts, it answers a lot of questions.

-1
BumbleHill -1 points ago +1 / -2

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here because you're not looking at the DA's Statement of Facts which is a document that always accompanies an indictment to help with the case. It explains in great detail (13 pages) all of the questions you are asking.

If you just read the indictment it will look sloppy, because that's how indictments are written, they are supposed to be succinct and only include the charges, the Statement of Fact goes over all of the reasoning behind the charges, you can find it here: https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23741892/donald-j-trump-sof.pdf

For the SoL, because Trump was not able to be prosecuted during his four years in office, the SoL is paused. There is some basic precedent for that.

Also, the part about Trump directing the actions of the Trump Organization is pretty clear - at least what they say in here - he physically signed more than 50 checks during 2017 that were for the TO, so that indicated his actions as leading and he hadn't signed over the TO to Eric.

The crime and fraud that is being covered up is very clear in the documents: "From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York.

The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme. 3. One component of this scheme was that, at the Defendant’s request, a lawyer who then worked for the Trump Organization as Special Counsel to Defendant (“Lawyer A”), covertly paid $130,000 to an adult film actress shortly before the election to prevent her from publicizing a sexual encounter with the Defendant.

Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution and 1 served time in prison. Further, false entries were made in New York business records to effectuate this payment, separate and apart from the New York business records used to conceal the payment."

Again, I think this is all bullshit, but I want to be factual here and make sure that we are looking at the big picture, I've seen a lot of pundits on TV just reading the indictment and saying there is nothing there. That's like reading the cover of a book and saying there is no real content.

0
BumbleHill 0 points ago +2 / -2

Someone debunked this a while ago, the picture was a reflection of a screenshot, they had it all over 4chan.

1
BumbleHill 1 point ago +3 / -2

He's had a year, where are the secrets.

8
BumbleHill 8 points ago +10 / -2

This is how I found out my friend took the vaxx in secret. He seemed very based, but his wife leans a bit left even though she never admits it. He's as healthy as can be, spent his whole life working outdoors and is very physical. Six months ago he developed a swift acting form of skin cancer and died very quickly. I reached out to his wife as soon as I heard he'd passed and demanded to know if he was vaxxed and she denied it but was just sobbing, I could tell she was lying.

12
BumbleHill 12 points ago +14 / -2

What a weird article.

The only evidence they have to call him the leaker is because Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorney, Alan Dershowitz, says so?

I don't trust a guy who spent two decades calling Epstein his best friend, then suddenly says he barely knew the guy.

1
BumbleHill 1 point ago +3 / -2

I wasn't saying whether it was good or bad, I was adding facts. Take a breath, buddy.

view more: Next ›