I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
I suggest you read this excellent summary from The Bulwark. It discusses the conspiracy between Pecker, Cohen and Trump that occurred a month before the election, mostly due to the Access Hollywood tape. The combination of that tape with the McDougal, door man and Daniels issue is what led to the crimes. FTR, the Bulwark is a conservative publication, although constructed of true "never Trump" conservatives.
Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.
"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."
Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.
So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.
And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her?
I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?
I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney.
And regarding the timing issue that keeps coming up, the article explains that neatly as well:
Not because Trump supposedly made the catch-and-kill hush money payments merely to avoid embarrassment and trouble at home, a line of defense floated last week by one of Trump’s attorneys, Joseph Tacopina. Tacopina argues that there was no violation of campaign finance laws because Trump would have made the payments regardless of the campaign in order to keep the information from getting to his wife and family.
But if Bragg can prove even a fraction of what he alleges in the statement of facts, the “it had nothing to do with the campaign” defense won’t get off the ground. The statement alleges, for instance, that the August 2015 meeting was specifically about helping Trump’s campaign; that Pecker agreed to not just catch and kill bad stories about Trump but also to publish hit pieces about his rivals for the nomination; that Trump instructed Pecker not to release anybody from the agreements until after the election; that Trump tried to delay the payment to Daniels until after the election in the hope that he might not have to pay her at all; and that AMI promptly released both the doorman and Karen McDougal from their agreements to remain silent shortly after the election. Taken together, this screams that the hush money payments were specifically designed to help Trump’s campaign.
It is probably true that if you or I had been caught committing Trump’s crimes, things would have played out differently. But the case wouldn’t have just gone away. Instead, we would probably have entered a plea agreement, perhaps pleading guilty to some but not all of the counts, perhaps admitting only the misdemeanor offenses but not the felonies, and likely accepting a fine and a reduced or suspended sentence.
There’s no plea deal here. But that’s on Trump, not Bragg. Trump never admits guilt for anything.
And regarding the timing issue that keeps coming up, the article explains that neatly as well:
Not because Trump supposedly made the catch-and-kill hush money payments merely to avoid embarrassment and trouble at home, a line of defense floated last week by one of Trump’s attorneys, Joseph Tacopina. Tacopina argues that there was no violation of campaign finance laws because Trump would have made the payments regardless of the campaign in order to keep the information from getting to his wife and family.
But if Bragg can prove even a fraction of what he alleges in the statement of facts, the “it had nothing to do with the campaign” defense won’t get off the ground. The statement alleges, for instance, that the August 2015 meeting was specifically about helping Trump’s campaign; that Pecker agreed to not just catch and kill bad stories about Trump but also to publish hit pieces about his rivals for the nomination; that Trump instructed Pecker not to release anybody from the agreements until after the election; that Trump tried to delay the payment to Daniels until after the election in the hope that he might not have to pay her at all; and that AMI promptly released both the doorman and Karen McDougal from their agreements to remain silent shortly after the election. Taken together, this screams that the hush money payments were specifically designed to help Trump’s campaign.
It is probably true that if you or I had been caught committing Trump’s crimes, things would have played out differently. But the case wouldn’t have just gone away. Instead, we would probably have entered a plea agreement, perhaps pleading guilty to some but not all of the counts, perhaps admitting only the misdemeanor offenses but not the felonies, and likely accepting a fine and a reduced or suspended sentence.
There’s no plea deal here. But that’s on Trump, not Bragg. Trump never admits guilt for anything.
Instead of just a lol, I would be interested on what you think the difference is. If Trump is facing 34 felony charges because he paid an attorney to do his dirty work, and that attorney then claimed it as income on his taxes which makes it tax fraud and therefore Trump involved in the cover up.
Hilary mislabeled multiple payments to her attorney, which were actually used to fund the research of the Dossier. She didn't want the public to know she was funding it, so they paid the attorney who then paid the Dossier people. This all happened at the exact same time Trump was paying off Stormy. How is that different? How is one tax fraud and the other not?
Its not. If its not a felony when Hilary does it. Why is it a felony when trump does it?
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
I suggest you read this excellent summary from The Bulwark. It discusses the conspiracy between Pecker, Cohen and Trump that occurred a month before the election, mostly due to the Access Hollywood tape. The combination of that tape with the McDougal, door man and Daniels issue is what led to the crimes. FTR, the Bulwark is a conservative publication, although constructed of true "never Trump" conservatives.
Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.
"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."
Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.
So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.
And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her?
I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?
I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney.
Are you just playing devils advocate with the Hillary whataboutism? Because it’s not the same thing.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
Was Hillary charged in NYS court with violations of NYS law?
Was John Edwards charged in NYS court with violations of NYS law?
Those, I believe, were FEC violations and charged in federal courts. No bearing other than being similar. And to Micky’s point, was Cohen falsely accused and convicted for an illegal campaign contribution, then? To which he was “directed” to do so knowingly by “subject 1?” Directed by his client in the absence of a retainer?
I look forward to reading the court transcripts and hearing the jury’s verdict. Think copping a plea is in the future?
For Trump to be facing felony charges the prosecution has to prove 2 things. This was for political gain and was a political contribution. The mislabeling of funds is minor in comparison, usually just a fine. What he is being charged with is falsifying those records with intent to cover up another crime. I haven't seen a real response why I am wrong. Which is why it is difficult to think many here are taking it seriously, they just want to see him locked up. If I am incorrect, then please explain. It matters where the money came from because if it came from trump, then there is no campaign donation violation, and therefore no coverup of an illegal donation. If it was to protect him and his family, then it isn't a campaign matter either, just like In the case with Edwards. So how does the state prove this was a donation when Trump reimbursed Cohen? How do you prove it was for political gain when they had been threatening her to keep silent for 5 years? the burden of proof is on the state, not on trump to prove his innocence. Without proving those things, its a record keeping infraction, similar to what Hilary was fined $8000 for when she disguised the dossier financing payments as legal fees. One they are probably all aware of and happy to pay a fine to keep the real spending hidden.
POOTWH still denies the affair. Why would POOTWH pay "hush money" to cover up an affair that he still doesn't, to this day, acknowledge? And how does his defense enter into testimony POOTWH's explanation of his motivation of why he wrote checks to Cohen, from the oval office and for twice the amount of what Cohen paid Stormy Weather, if he pleads the 5th or refuses to testify? It can't be both sides of the argument. It has to be a defense of one or the other. So, which is it?
To the first bold: You honestly don't believe that Bragg about taking POOTWH down can't convince a jury that this was "for political gain?" What was it for? He still denies it. Cohen was convicted for it and "directed" by Subject #1 to pay her. Why would POOTWH reimburse his non-retained attorney twice the amount of said attorney's payment to Stormy Weather, if the affair "never happened" and if not for "political gain?" Goods and services, the value thereof, and money donations are considered "political contributions." What value would you put on Stormy Weather's silence in October 2016, in the heat of a presidential campaign? As a juror? Bragg about bringing POOTWH down has documents, witnesses and statutory law with precedent on his side, even if the federal campaign finance violation underpins the 34 misdemeanors and is a unique, untested legal strategy. POOTWH, the "victim" has some explaining to do before the jury. In the absence of that, what does its defense become?
From WaPo:
Donald Trump has asked for a four-week delay of a civil trial involving an allegation of rape by author E. Jean Carroll, claiming a “cooling off” period is needed after the former president’s recent indictment and arraignment in Manhattan in a criminal case involving hush money payments to an adult-film star to silence her about an alleged affair.
In a letter late Tuesday to the judge presiding over the Carroll trial, scheduled to start April 25, lawyers for Trump argued the postponement is needed because of the “deluge” of publicity and “prejudicial media coverage concerning [Trump’s] unprecedented indictment and arraignment.”
“Holding the trial of this case a mere three weeks after these historic events will guarantee that many, if not most, prospective jurors will have the criminal allegations top of mind when judging” Trump’s defense against Carroll, says the letter from lawyers Joe Tacopina and Alina Habba to District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.
Trump, who has denied the accusations in both cases, has frequently employed delay tactics in litigation, including earlier in the Carroll case.
In the letter, Trump’s lawyers conceded that he is “a persistent subject of media coverage” but argue the current situation is “unique.”
And my favorite part and of which has no bearing on the falsification of business records case:
Carroll is among more than a dozen women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct over the years.
In denying the allegations by Carroll, Trump said she was “not my type.” However, in a deposition at Mar-a-Lago last year, Trump mistook Carroll for his ex-wife Marla Maples when shown a photograph from the 1990s, potentially undermining one of the common defenses he has used to deny an attack.
“That’s Marla, yeah. That’s my wife,” Trump said under examination from Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan, in a selection of excerpts from the deposition that were unsealed in January.
You can pretend to know what motivated Stormy Weather but I'm betting she's going to take the stand. You can also pretend to know what motivated POOTWH to pay Cohen twice what Cohen paid Stormy Weather but I'm betting POOTWH refuses to take the stand. As a juror, and despite the judge's directions to the contrary, that's damning, particularly in light of the documentary evidence that will be presented and witness testimony to be heard, under oath.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
From who? Link, please?
many people are saying...
so, so many people...almost all the people. close, but not all the people...but everyone - so, so, so many people.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
I suggest you read this excellent summary from The Bulwark. It discusses the conspiracy between Pecker, Cohen and Trump that occurred a month before the election, mostly due to the Access Hollywood tape. The combination of that tape with the McDougal, door man and Daniels issue is what led to the crimes. FTR, the Bulwark is a conservative publication, although constructed of true "never Trump" conservatives.
Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.
"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."
Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.
So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.
And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her?
I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?
I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney.
Are you just playing devils advocate with the Hillary whataboutism? Because it’s not the same thing.
Basically. But I don't see how you can think one is a felony and the other is not. Both made payments to an attorney to hide what the payment was really for during the 2016 campaign. Trump paid his attorney to pay off Stormy. Hilary paid her attorney so he could fund the dossier research. Both in and of itself are not illegal. They both purposefully misreported it to hide what the funds were for from the voters during the 2016 campaign. One got fined $8000, the other is facing 34 felony charges and potential tax fraud because the attorney he paid claimed it as income and deducted it as legal fees (as I'm sure Hilary's attorney did too, but that is just an assumption-i don't know that for fact).
I just don't see how you can think 34 felony charges is just for one, and a small fine fair for the other. Both hid a transaction by fraudulently reporting payments to an attorney and hid the details during a campaign.
I don't think Hilary deserved to be charged as much as I am beginning to think this is an overreach with Trump.
And regarding the timing issue that keeps coming up, the article explains that neatly as well:
Not because Trump supposedly made the catch-and-kill hush money payments merely to avoid embarrassment and trouble at home, a line of defense floated last week by one of Trump’s attorneys, Joseph Tacopina. Tacopina argues that there was no violation of campaign finance laws because Trump would have made the payments regardless of the campaign in order to keep the information from getting to his wife and family.
But if Bragg can prove even a fraction of what he alleges in the statement of facts, the “it had nothing to do with the campaign” defense won’t get off the ground. The statement alleges, for instance, that the August 2015 meeting was specifically about helping Trump’s campaign; that Pecker agreed to not just catch and kill bad stories about Trump but also to publish hit pieces about his rivals for the nomination; that Trump instructed Pecker not to release anybody from the agreements until after the election; that Trump tried to delay the payment to Daniels until after the election in the hope that he might not have to pay her at all; and that AMI promptly released both the doorman and Karen McDougal from their agreements to remain silent shortly after the election. Taken together, this screams that the hush money payments were specifically designed to help Trump’s campaign.
It is probably true that if you or I had been caught committing Trump’s crimes, things would have played out differently. But the case wouldn’t have just gone away. Instead, we would probably have entered a plea agreement, perhaps pleading guilty to some but not all of the counts, perhaps admitting only the misdemeanor offenses but not the felonies, and likely accepting a fine and a reduced or suspended sentence.
There’s no plea deal here. But that’s on Trump, not Bragg. Trump never admits guilt for anything.
Instead of just a lol, I would be interested on what you think the difference is. If Trump is facing 34 felony charges because he paid an attorney to do his dirty work, and that attorney then claimed it as income on his taxes which makes it tax fraud and therefore Trump involved in the cover up.
Hilary mislabeled multiple payments to her attorney, which were actually used to fund the research of the Dossier. She didn't want the public to know she was funding it, so they paid the attorney who then paid the Dossier people. This all happened at the exact same time Trump was paying off Stormy. How is that different? How is one tax fraud and the other not?
Its not. If its not a felony when Hilary does it. Why is it a felony when trump does it?
And regarding the timing issue that keeps coming up, the article explains that neatly as well:
Not because Trump supposedly made the catch-and-kill hush money payments merely to avoid embarrassment and trouble at home, a line of defense floated last week by one of Trump’s attorneys, Joseph Tacopina. Tacopina argues that there was no violation of campaign finance laws because Trump would have made the payments regardless of the campaign in order to keep the information from getting to his wife and family.
But if Bragg can prove even a fraction of what he alleges in the statement of facts, the “it had nothing to do with the campaign” defense won’t get off the ground. The statement alleges, for instance, that the August 2015 meeting was specifically about helping Trump’s campaign; that Pecker agreed to not just catch and kill bad stories about Trump but also to publish hit pieces about his rivals for the nomination; that Trump instructed Pecker not to release anybody from the agreements until after the election; that Trump tried to delay the payment to Daniels until after the election in the hope that he might not have to pay her at all; and that AMI promptly released both the doorman and Karen McDougal from their agreements to remain silent shortly after the election. Taken together, this screams that the hush money payments were specifically designed to help Trump’s campaign.
It is probably true that if you or I had been caught committing Trump’s crimes, things would have played out differently. But the case wouldn’t have just gone away. Instead, we would probably have entered a plea agreement, perhaps pleading guilty to some but not all of the counts, perhaps admitting only the misdemeanor offenses but not the felonies, and likely accepting a fine and a reduced or suspended sentence.
There’s no plea deal here. But that’s on Trump, not Bragg. Trump never admits guilt for anything.
Instead of just a lol, I would be interested on what you think the difference is. If Trump is facing 34 felony charges because he paid an attorney to do his dirty work, and that attorney then claimed it as income on his taxes which makes it tax fraud and therefore Trump involved in the cover up.
Hilary mislabeled multiple payments to her attorney, which were actually used to fund the research of the Dossier. She didn't want the public to know she was funding it, so they paid the attorney who then paid the Dossier people. This all happened at the exact same time Trump was paying off Stormy. How is that different? How is one tax fraud and the other not?
Its not. If its not a felony when Hilary does it. Why is it a felony when trump does it?
Here's why.
Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the infamous Steele dossier.
FEC violations do not equal NYS law. But I'll ask, as a resident of NYS, did Hillary falsify her NYS business records to hide the payments to her unretained attorney?
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
From who? Link, please?
many people are saying...
so, so many people...almost all the people. close, but not all the people...but everyone - so, so, so many people.
And that's why this place is pointless. You can make an obvious comment, like point out the fact one of the main arguments is that he did it for his campaign, but bring it up once and everyone acts like no one ever said it.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
From who? Link, please?
many people are saying...
so, so many people...almost all the people. close, but not all the people...but everyone - so, so, so many people.
And that's why this place is pointless. You can make an obvious comment, like point out the fact one of the main arguments is that he did it for his campaign, but bring it up once and everyone acts like no one ever said it.
We don't know why POOTWH did what he did. Its got some 'splaining to do. In court. Under oath. Or not.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
I suggest you read this excellent summary from The Bulwark. It discusses the conspiracy between Pecker, Cohen and Trump that occurred a month before the election, mostly due to the Access Hollywood tape. The combination of that tape with the McDougal, door man and Daniels issue is what led to the crimes. FTR, the Bulwark is a conservative publication, although constructed of true "never Trump" conservatives.
Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.
"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."
Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.
So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.
And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her?
I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?
I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney.
Are you just playing devils advocate with the Hillary whataboutism? Because it’s not the same thing.
Basically. But I don't see how you can think one is a felony and the other is not. Both made payments to an attorney to hide what the payment was really for during the 2016 campaign. Trump paid his attorney to pay off Stormy. Hilary paid her attorney so he could fund the dossier research. Both in and of itself are not illegal. They both purposefully misreported it to hide what the funds were for from the voters during the 2016 campaign. One got fined $8000, the other is facing 34 felony charges and potential tax fraud because the attorney he paid claimed it as income and deducted it as legal fees (as I'm sure Hilary's attorney did too, but that is just an assumption-i don't know that for fact).
I just don't see how you can think 34 felony charges is just for one, and a small fine fair for the other. Both hid a transaction by fraudulently reporting payments to an attorney and hid the details during a campaign.
I don't think Hilary deserved to be charged as much as I am beginning to think this is an overreach with Trump.
And one falsified NYS business records, which is what lead to the charges. Did Hillary falsify NYS business records? Remember the Clinton Global Foundation? Has Hillary or Bill, as residents of NYS, ever been charged with falsifying their 501c3 or whatever numeral designation is assigned for non-profits?
I would think that you'd look forward to POOTWH taking the stand and explaining this all away, yes?
Normal. Everyone does it. But I suppose you have to show your donors how you're fighting the grave injustices being done to them, right?
Trump sues Michael Cohen, a key witness in N.Y. criminal case, seeking $500 million
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump filed a lawsuit in federal court on Wednesday against his former lawyer Michael Cohen — who has emerged as a key witness in the criminal case against the former president — seeking more than $500 million in damages for alleged "breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breaches of contract."
Cohen was the key witness to testify last month before a Manhattan grand jury, which then approved a 34-count indictment against Trump. The former president has denied any wrongdoing.
The complaint accuses Cohen of violating his attorney-client relationship with Trump by publicly disclosing information about the former president and “spreading falsehoods about [Trump], likely to be embarrassing or detrimental, and partook in other misconduct in violation of New York Rules of Professional Conduct.”
The former president has “suffered vast reputational harm as a direct result of Defendant’s breaches,” Trump’s lawyer Alejandro Brito wrote in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Trump’s attorney said that Cohen did those things with “malicious intent and to wholly self-serving ends.”
Cohen committed the breaches by “disparaging” Trump “through myriad public statements, including the publication of two books, a podcast series, and innumerable mainstream media appearances,” the complaint said.
“Defendant has engaged in such wrongful conduct over a period of time and, despite being demanded in writing to cease and desist such unacceptable actions, has instead in recent months increased the frequency and hostility of the illicit acts toward Plaintiff,” Trump’s lawyer wrote.
Trump wants "compensatory, incidental, and punitive damages" in an amount that would be determined at a trial and would "substantially exceed" $500 million, the complaint said. He also wants any profits or compensation Cohen receives from his books, podcast or other products.
Trump has railed against Cohen, the former president's previous longtime attorney, who pleaded guilty in 2018 to a host of charges tied to tax evasion, as well as lying to Congress in its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and his role in funneling payments to silence two women who alleged that they had affairs with Trump.
Last week, the former president was charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to his alleged role in those hush money payments toward the end of his 2016 presidential campaign.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
No matter what, it will always, ALWAYS, circle back to Hillary Fucking Clinton. Good god almighty.
false
you shouldn't laugh or mock if you can't/won't answer the question. mace obviously isn't a "lock her up" nutcase. he had a LEGITIMATE question about the difference, which you couldn't/wouldn't answer. so you "lol".
this isn't one of those cases of a magat throwing out hillary clinton because that's what they do. it was because the cases looked similar to the average joe just having a conversation.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
No matter what, it will always, ALWAYS, circle back to Hillary Fucking Clinton. Good god almighty.
false
you shouldn't laugh or mock if you can't/won't answer the question. mace obviously isn't a "lock her up" nutcase. he had a LEGITIMATE question about the difference, which you couldn't/wouldn't answer. so you "lol".
this isn't one of those cases of a magat throwing out hillary clinton because that's what they do. it was because the cases looked similar to the average joe just having a conversation.
I never said he was a "magat" (your word). Republicans have used her as their bogeywoman for decades prior to maga even existed. I don't see any difference here.
It's classic whataboutism. Being fined by the FEC is not the same thing as what Trump is under indictment for. Even Trump isn't using the Hillary card....well, yet, anyway. lol
No matter what, it will always, ALWAYS, circle back to Hillary Fucking Clinton. Good god almighty.
false
you shouldn't laugh or mock if you can't/won't answer the question. mace obviously isn't a "lock her up" nutcase. he had a LEGITIMATE question about the difference, which you couldn't/wouldn't answer. so you "lol".
this isn't one of those cases of a magat throwing out hillary clinton because that's what they do. it was because the cases looked similar to the average joe just having a conversation.
I never said he was a "magat" (your word). Republicans have used her as their bogeywoman for decades prior to maga even existed. I don't see any difference here.
I know you didn't say he was one. I was just saying this isn't your run-of-the-mill moron waving the "but hillary's emails" flag. mace isn't using her as his bogeywoman. he was asking legit questions about the difference (I didn't know the difference either). Halifax finally answered the difference is between FEC violations and NYS law. but you just dismissed it without providing any reason why.
just curious why a discussion can't be had without the constant condescension if it doesn't fit the "but it's trump!" line of thinking.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
No matter what, it will always, ALWAYS, circle back to Hillary Fucking Clinton. Good god almighty.
false
you shouldn't laugh or mock if you can't/won't answer the question. mace obviously isn't a "lock her up" nutcase. he had a LEGITIMATE question about the difference, which you couldn't/wouldn't answer. so you "lol".
this isn't one of those cases of a magat throwing out hillary clinton because that's what they do. it was because the cases looked similar to the average joe just having a conversation.
I never said he was a "magat" (your word). Republicans have used her as their bogeywoman for decades prior to maga even existed. I don't see any difference here.
I know you didn't say he was one. I was just saying this isn't your run-of-the-mill moron waving the "but hillary's emails" flag. mace isn't using her as his bogeywoman. he was asking legit questions about the difference (I didn't know the difference either). Halifax finally answered the difference is between FEC violations and NYS law. but you just dismissed it without providing any reason why.
just curious why a discussion can't be had without the constant condescension if it doesn't fit the "but it's trump!" line of thinking.
Because it stinks of the ol' "whataboutism" schtick that has diluted so many conversations over the last decade or so. It's just tiresome to me. Sorry.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
I suggest you read this excellent summary from The Bulwark. It discusses the conspiracy between Pecker, Cohen and Trump that occurred a month before the election, mostly due to the Access Hollywood tape. The combination of that tape with the McDougal, door man and Daniels issue is what led to the crimes. FTR, the Bulwark is a conservative publication, although constructed of true "never Trump" conservatives.
Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.
"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."
Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.
So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.
And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her?
I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?
I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney.
Hillary didn't pay anything. Her campaign paid Perkins Coie who in turn hired Fusion GPS which in turn hired Richard Steele for oppo research. So first off, Hillary wasn't the CEO of Fusion or Perkins for that matter. Nor was she the CEO of her campaign. They aren't structured like a business and are not corporations. They likely recorded this as a campaign expense and that was perfectly legitimate as a campaign expense. Why do you think her campaign was hiding it?
Unless you are speaking of something other than the Steele Dossier, your analogy doesn't fit here.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
I suggest you read this excellent summary from The Bulwark. It discusses the conspiracy between Pecker, Cohen and Trump that occurred a month before the election, mostly due to the Access Hollywood tape. The combination of that tape with the McDougal, door man and Daniels issue is what led to the crimes. FTR, the Bulwark is a conservative publication, although constructed of true "never Trump" conservatives.
Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.
"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."
Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.
So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.
And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her?
I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?
I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney.
Hillary didn't pay anything. Her campaign paid Perkins Coie who in turn hired Fusion GPS which in turn hired Richard Steele for oppo research. So first off, Hillary wasn't the CEO of Fusion or Perkins for that matter. Nor was she the CEO of her campaign. They aren't structured like a business and are not corporations. They likely recorded this as a campaign expense and that was perfectly legitimate as a campaign expense. Why do you think her campaign was hiding it?
Unless you are speaking of something other than the Steele Dossier, your analogy doesn't fit here.
Hillary paid $8K and the DNC paid $134K. And the attorney, like Cohen, was found guilty or plead guilty to a crime. So, in that way, they are similar. The major difference, Clinton worked out an agreement, see above, and didn't falsify any business, or personal records for that matter, falsifying NYS business records in the process. And again, POOTWH is not charged with tax fraud. Yet. And further, much as I dislike the "take the 5th" its a fundamental right of the accused, just as not having to re-litigate or prove the underlying crime that the 34 misdemeanors allude to is for Bragg about taking POOTWH down, a crime that Cohen did time for.
No matter what, it will always, ALWAYS, circle back to Hillary Fucking Clinton. Good god almighty.
false
you shouldn't laugh or mock if you can't/won't answer the question. mace obviously isn't a "lock her up" nutcase. he had a LEGITIMATE question about the difference, which you couldn't/wouldn't answer. so you "lol".
this isn't one of those cases of a magat throwing out hillary clinton because that's what they do. it was because the cases looked similar to the average joe just having a conversation.
I never said he was a "magat" (your word). Republicans have used her as their bogeywoman for decades prior to maga even existed. I don't see any difference here.
I know you didn't say he was one. I was just saying this isn't your run-of-the-mill moron waving the "but hillary's emails" flag. mace isn't using her as his bogeywoman. he was asking legit questions about the difference (I didn't know the difference either). Halifax finally answered the difference is between FEC violations and NYS law. but you just dismissed it without providing any reason why.
just curious why a discussion can't be had without the constant condescension if it doesn't fit the "but it's trump!" line of thinking.
Because it stinks of the ol' "whataboutism" schtick that has diluted so many conversations over the last decade or so. It's just tiresome to me. Sorry.
dude's been writing fucking intelligent essays in his back and forth on the subject. hardly stinks of whataboutism.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
I suggest you read this excellent summary from The Bulwark. It discusses the conspiracy between Pecker, Cohen and Trump that occurred a month before the election, mostly due to the Access Hollywood tape. The combination of that tape with the McDougal, door man and Daniels issue is what led to the crimes. FTR, the Bulwark is a conservative publication, although constructed of true "never Trump" conservatives.
Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.
"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."
Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.
So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.
And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her?
I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?
I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney.
Hillary didn't pay anything. Her campaign paid Perkins Coie who in turn hired Fusion GPS which in turn hired Richard Steele for oppo research. So first off, Hillary wasn't the CEO of Fusion or Perkins for that matter. Nor was she the CEO of her campaign. They aren't structured like a business and are not corporations. They likely recorded this as a campaign expense and that was perfectly legitimate as a campaign expense. Why do you think her campaign was hiding it?
Unless you are speaking of something other than the Steele Dossier, your analogy doesn't fit here.
Hillary paid $8K and the DNC paid $134K. And the attorney, like Cohen, was found guilty or plead guilty to a crime. So, in that way, they are similar. The major difference, Clinton worked out an agreement, see above, and didn't falsify any business, or personal records for that matter, falsifying NYS business records in the process. And again, POOTWH is not charged with tax fraud. Yet. And further, much as I dislike the "take the 5th" its a fundamental right of the accused, just as not having to re-litigate or prove the underlying crime that the 34 misdemeanors allude to is for Bragg about taking POOTWH down, a crime that Cohen did time for.
You're saying Hillary personally paid the money from her own account or personal company, rather than the Hillary campaign, which is not a corp, or LLC?
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
I suggest you read this excellent summary from The Bulwark. It discusses the conspiracy between Pecker, Cohen and Trump that occurred a month before the election, mostly due to the Access Hollywood tape. The combination of that tape with the McDougal, door man and Daniels issue is what led to the crimes. FTR, the Bulwark is a conservative publication, although constructed of true "never Trump" conservatives.
Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.
"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."
Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.
So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.
And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her?
I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?
I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney.
Hillary didn't pay anything. Her campaign paid Perkins Coie who in turn hired Fusion GPS which in turn hired Richard Steele for oppo research. So first off, Hillary wasn't the CEO of Fusion or Perkins for that matter. Nor was she the CEO of her campaign. They aren't structured like a business and are not corporations. They likely recorded this as a campaign expense and that was perfectly legitimate as a campaign expense. Why do you think her campaign was hiding it?
Unless you are speaking of something other than the Steele Dossier, your analogy doesn't fit here.
Hillary paid $8K and the DNC paid $134K. And the attorney, like Cohen, was found guilty or plead guilty to a crime. So, in that way, they are similar. The major difference, Clinton worked out an agreement, see above, and didn't falsify any business, or personal records for that matter, falsifying NYS business records in the process. And again, POOTWH is not charged with tax fraud. Yet. And further, much as I dislike the "take the 5th" its a fundamental right of the accused, just as not having to re-litigate or prove the underlying crime that the 34 misdemeanors allude to is for Bragg about taking POOTWH down, a crime that Cohen did time for.
You're saying Hillary personally paid the money from her own account or personal company, rather than the Hillary campaign, which is not a corp, or LLC?
Yes, I'm saying that Hillary the candidate paid $8K to settle the FEC violation. Unless I'm wrong? Its in the Guardian article.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
I suggest you read this excellent summary from The Bulwark. It discusses the conspiracy between Pecker, Cohen and Trump that occurred a month before the election, mostly due to the Access Hollywood tape. The combination of that tape with the McDougal, door man and Daniels issue is what led to the crimes. FTR, the Bulwark is a conservative publication, although constructed of true "never Trump" conservatives.
Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.
"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."
Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.
So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.
And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her?
I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?
I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney.
Hillary didn't pay anything. Her campaign paid Perkins Coie who in turn hired Fusion GPS which in turn hired Richard Steele for oppo research. So first off, Hillary wasn't the CEO of Fusion or Perkins for that matter. Nor was she the CEO of her campaign. They aren't structured like a business and are not corporations. They likely recorded this as a campaign expense and that was perfectly legitimate as a campaign expense. Why do you think her campaign was hiding it?
Unless you are speaking of something other than the Steele Dossier, your analogy doesn't fit here.
Hillary paid $8K and the DNC paid $134K. And the attorney, like Cohen, was found guilty or plead guilty to a crime. So, in that way, they are similar. The major difference, Clinton worked out an agreement, see above, and didn't falsify any business, or personal records for that matter, falsifying NYS business records in the process. And again, POOTWH is not charged with tax fraud. Yet. And further, much as I dislike the "take the 5th" its a fundamental right of the accused, just as not having to re-litigate or prove the underlying crime that the 34 misdemeanors allude to is for Bragg about taking POOTWH down, a crime that Cohen did time for.
You're saying Hillary personally paid the money from her own account or personal company, rather than the Hillary campaign, which is not a corp, or LLC?
Yes, I'm saying that Hillary the candidate paid $8K to settle the FEC violation. Unless I'm wrong? Its in the Guardian article.
Oops, "Clinton campaign" paid $8K and the DNC paid $105K for a total of $113K to settle the FEC charges.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "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."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
I suggest you read this excellent summary from The Bulwark. It discusses the conspiracy between Pecker, Cohen and Trump that occurred a month before the election, mostly due to the Access Hollywood tape. The combination of that tape with the McDougal, door man and Daniels issue is what led to the crimes. FTR, the Bulwark is a conservative publication, although constructed of true "never Trump" conservatives.
Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.
"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."
Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.
So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.
And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her?
I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?
I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney.
Hillary didn't pay anything. Her campaign paid Perkins Coie who in turn hired Fusion GPS which in turn hired Richard Steele for oppo research. So first off, Hillary wasn't the CEO of Fusion or Perkins for that matter. Nor was she the CEO of her campaign. They aren't structured like a business and are not corporations. They likely recorded this as a campaign expense and that was perfectly legitimate as a campaign expense. Why do you think her campaign was hiding it?
Unless you are speaking of something other than the Steele Dossier, your analogy doesn't fit here.
Hillary paid $8K and the DNC paid $134K. And the attorney, like Cohen, was found guilty or plead guilty to a crime. So, in that way, they are similar. The major difference, Clinton worked out an agreement, see above, and didn't falsify any business, or personal records for that matter, falsifying NYS business records in the process. And again, POOTWH is not charged with tax fraud. Yet. And further, much as I dislike the "take the 5th" its a fundamental right of the accused, just as not having to re-litigate or prove the underlying crime that the 34 misdemeanors allude to is for Bragg about taking POOTWH down, a crime that Cohen did time for.
You're saying Hillary personally paid the money from her own account or personal company, rather than the Hillary campaign, which is not a corp, or LLC?
Yes, I'm saying that Hillary the candidate paid $8K to settle the FEC violation. Unless I'm wrong? Its in the Guardian article.
Oops, "Clinton campaign" paid $8K and the DNC paid $105K for a total of $113K to settle the FEC charges.
Right, that's the difference. I guarantee that Hillary was not the principal of the Clinton for President (or whatever they called it) campaign. You would not put the candidate in that type of risk position.
Comments
"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."
Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part.
My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit.
But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.
So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.
And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her?
I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?
I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney.
Hillary?! lol
And regarding the timing issue that keeps coming up, the article explains that neatly as well:
Not because Trump supposedly made the catch-and-kill hush money payments merely to avoid embarrassment and trouble at home, a line of defense floated last week by one of Trump’s attorneys, Joseph Tacopina. Tacopina argues that there was no violation of campaign finance laws because Trump would have made the payments regardless of the campaign in order to keep the information from getting to his wife and family.
But if Bragg can prove even a fraction of what he alleges in the statement of facts, the “it had nothing to do with the campaign” defense won’t get off the ground. The statement alleges, for instance, that the August 2015 meeting was specifically about helping Trump’s campaign; that Pecker agreed to not just catch and kill bad stories about Trump but also to publish hit pieces about his rivals for the nomination; that Trump instructed Pecker not to release anybody from the agreements until after the election; that Trump tried to delay the payment to Daniels until after the election in the hope that he might not have to pay her at all; and that AMI promptly released both the doorman and Karen McDougal from their agreements to remain silent shortly after the election. Taken together, this screams that the hush money payments were specifically designed to help Trump’s campaign.
It is probably true that if you or I had been caught committing Trump’s crimes, things would have played out differently. But the case wouldn’t have just gone away. Instead, we would probably have entered a plea agreement, perhaps pleading guilty to some but not all of the counts, perhaps admitting only the misdemeanor offenses but not the felonies, and likely accepting a fine and a reduced or suspended sentence.
There’s no plea deal here. But that’s on Trump, not Bragg. Trump never admits guilt for anything.
If Trump is facing 34 felony charges because he paid an attorney to do his dirty work, and that attorney then claimed it as income on his taxes which makes it tax fraud and therefore Trump involved in the cover up.
Hilary mislabeled multiple payments to her attorney, which were actually used to fund the research of the Dossier. She didn't want the public to know she was funding it, so they paid the attorney who then paid the Dossier people. This all happened at the exact same time Trump was paying off Stormy.
How is that different? How is one tax fraud and the other not?
Its not. If its not a felony when Hilary does it. Why is it a felony when trump does it?
To the first bold: You honestly don't believe that Bragg about taking POOTWH down can't convince a jury that this was "for political gain?" What was it for? He still denies it. Cohen was convicted for it and "directed" by Subject #1 to pay her. Why would POOTWH reimburse his non-retained attorney twice the amount of said attorney's payment to Stormy Weather, if the affair "never happened" and if not for "political gain?" Goods and services, the value thereof, and money donations are considered "political contributions." What value would you put on Stormy Weather's silence in October 2016, in the heat of a presidential campaign? As a juror? Bragg about bringing POOTWH down has documents, witnesses and statutory law with precedent on his side, even if the federal campaign finance violation underpins the 34 misdemeanors and is a unique, untested legal strategy. POOTWH, the "victim" has some explaining to do before the jury. In the absence of that, what does its defense become?
From WaPo:
Donald Trump has asked for a four-week delay of a civil trial involving an allegation of rape by author E. Jean Carroll, claiming a “cooling off” period is needed after the former president’s recent indictment and arraignment in Manhattan in a criminal case involving hush money payments to an adult-film star to silence her about an alleged affair.
In a letter late Tuesday to the judge presiding over the Carroll trial, scheduled to start April 25, lawyers for Trump argued the postponement is needed because of the “deluge” of publicity and “prejudicial media coverage concerning [Trump’s] unprecedented indictment and arraignment.”
“Holding the trial of this case a mere three weeks after these historic events will guarantee that many, if not most, prospective jurors will have the criminal allegations top of mind when judging” Trump’s defense against Carroll, says the letter from lawyers Joe Tacopina and Alina Habba to District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan.
Trump, who has denied the accusations in both cases, has frequently employed delay tactics in litigation, including earlier in the Carroll case.
In the letter, Trump’s lawyers conceded that he is “a persistent subject of media coverage” but argue the current situation is “unique.”
And my favorite part and of which has no bearing on the falsification of business records case:
Carroll is among more than a dozen women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct over the years.
In denying the allegations by Carroll, Trump said she was “not my type.” However, in a deposition at Mar-a-Lago last year, Trump mistook Carroll for his ex-wife Marla Maples when shown a photograph from the 1990s, potentially undermining one of the common defenses he has used to deny an attack.
“That’s Marla, yeah. That’s my wife,” Trump said under examination from Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan, in a selection of excerpts from the deposition that were unsealed in January.
You can pretend to know what motivated Stormy Weather but I'm betting she's going to take the stand. You can also pretend to know what motivated POOTWH to pay Cohen twice what Cohen paid Stormy Weather but I'm betting POOTWH refuses to take the stand. As a juror, and despite the judge's directions to the contrary, that's damning, particularly in light of the documentary evidence that will be presented and witness testimony to be heard, under oath.
Trump seeks ‘cooling off’ delay in case involving rape claim - The Washington Post
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
But I don't see how you can think one is a felony and the other is not. Both made payments to an attorney to hide what the payment was really for during the 2016 campaign.
Trump paid his attorney to pay off Stormy.
Hilary paid her attorney so he could fund the dossier research.
Both in and of itself are not illegal. They both purposefully misreported it to hide what the funds were for from the voters during the 2016 campaign. One got fined $8000, the other is facing 34 felony charges and potential tax fraud because the attorney he paid claimed it as income and deducted it as legal fees (as I'm sure Hilary's attorney did too, but that is just an assumption-i don't know that for fact).
I just don't see how you can think 34 felony charges is just for one, and a small fine fair for the other. Both hid a transaction by fraudulently reporting payments to an attorney and hid the details during a campaign.
I don't think Hilary deserved to be charged as much as I am beginning to think this is an overreach with Trump.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the infamous Steele dossier.
Hillary Clinton and Democrats settle Steele dossier electoral case for $113,000 | Hillary Clinton | The Guardian
FEC violations do not equal NYS law. But I'll ask, as a resident of NYS, did Hillary falsify her NYS business records to hide the payments to her unretained attorney?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I would think that you'd look forward to POOTWH taking the stand and explaining this all away, yes?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Trump sues Michael Cohen, a key witness in N.Y. criminal case, seeking $500 million
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump filed a lawsuit in federal court on Wednesday against his former lawyer Michael Cohen — who has emerged as a key witness in the criminal case against the former president — seeking more than $500 million in damages for alleged "breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breaches of contract."Cohen was the key witness to testify last month before a Manhattan grand jury, which then approved a 34-count indictment against Trump. The former president has denied any wrongdoing.
The complaint accuses Cohen of violating his attorney-client relationship with Trump by publicly disclosing information about the former president and “spreading falsehoods about [Trump], likely to be embarrassing or detrimental, and partook in other misconduct in violation of New York Rules of Professional Conduct.”
The former president has “suffered vast reputational harm as a direct result of Defendant’s breaches,” Trump’s lawyer Alejandro Brito wrote in the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Trump’s attorney said that Cohen did those things with “malicious intent and to wholly self-serving ends.”
Cohen committed the breaches by “disparaging” Trump “through myriad public statements, including the publication of two books, a podcast series, and innumerable mainstream media appearances,” the complaint said.
“Defendant has engaged in such wrongful conduct over a period of time and, despite being demanded in writing to cease and desist such unacceptable actions, has instead in recent months increased the frequency and hostility of the illicit acts toward Plaintiff,” Trump’s lawyer wrote.
Trump wants "compensatory, incidental, and punitive damages" in an amount that would be determined at a trial and would "substantially exceed" $500 million, the complaint said. He also wants any profits or compensation Cohen receives from his books, podcast or other products.
Trump has railed against Cohen, the former president's previous longtime attorney, who pleaded guilty in 2018 to a host of charges tied to tax evasion, as well as lying to Congress in its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and his role in funneling payments to silence two women who alleged that they had affairs with Trump.
Cohen completed his resulting prison sentence in November 2021. Trump has denied the affairs and any wrongdoing connected to the hush money payments.
Last week, the former president was charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to his alleged role in those hush money payments toward the end of his 2016 presidential campaign.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Trump sues Michael Cohen, a key witness in N.Y. criminal case, seeking $500 million (msn.com)
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
you shouldn't laugh or mock if you can't/won't answer the question. mace obviously isn't a "lock her up" nutcase. he had a LEGITIMATE question about the difference, which you couldn't/wouldn't answer. so you "lol".
this isn't one of those cases of a magat throwing out hillary clinton because that's what they do. it was because the cases looked similar to the average joe just having a conversation.
-EV 8/14/93
It's classic whataboutism. Being fined by the FEC is not the same thing as what Trump is under indictment for. Even Trump isn't using the Hillary card....well, yet, anyway. lol
just curious why a discussion can't be had without the constant condescension if it doesn't fit the "but it's trump!" line of thinking.
-EV 8/14/93
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
Unless you are speaking of something other than the Steele Dossier, your analogy doesn't fit here.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
-EV 8/14/93
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©