---President Elect Musk and Convicted Felon Donald J Trump---
Comments
-
For the record, I don't think everyone who watches UFC is a knuckledragger, nor 100% of the people who attend. I wrestled in high school, I understand the appeal.
With that being said, knowing what i know about that target demo... I won't be going to any UFC fights anytime soon. It's not a crowd I want to be a part of.0 -
Yes, I wrestled too, in Cleveland. We were good, finished third in the state to two national powers.Merkin Baller said:
For the record, I don't think everyone who watches UFC is a knuckledragger, nor 100% of the people who attend. I wrestled in high school, I understand the appeal.
With that being said, knowing what i know about that target demo... I won't be going to any UFC fights anytime soon. It's not a crowd I want to be a part of.0 -
2024
Yeah, there was a PPV in Winnipeg several years back. During the weigh ins, they had a fan Q and A and my god, the questions to the fighters were embarrassing…very few brain cells in that room. I tweeted Dustin Poirier afterwards apologizing on behalf of my city and he laughed.Merkin Baller said:
For the record, I don't think everyone who watches UFC is a knuckledragger, nor 100% of the people who attend. I wrestled in high school, I understand the appeal.
With that being said, knowing what i know about that target demo... I won't be going to any UFC fights anytime soon. It's not a crowd I want to be a part of.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
2023
the best they have been able to do is make angry videos from the front seat of their pickup truck.The Juggler said:
I was told this country was in up in arms over this indictment and was going to fight for President Trump?mickeyrat said:The Juggler said:Did I miss all the death, destruction and protests over Trump's indictment? When's that supposed to take place?
they'll have it ready in 2 weeks.
plus they know biden will not pardon them so they do not want to get in to toooooo much trouble."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
Will Trump attend his rape trial? Judge wants to knowBy LARRY NEUMEISTER7 mins ago
NEW YORK (AP) — A federal judge wants to know if ex-President Donald Trump plans to attend a New York trial this month resulting from a columnist’s claims that he raped her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan issued an order Monday directing parties in the case to notify him by April 20 whether they will be present throughout the trial, scheduled to start April 25 in Manhattan federal court. And later in the day, he rejected a request that names of anonymous jurors be released to lawyers, saying Trump's latest public statements about a criminal case against him in state court show jurors might be harassed if their identities got out.
A writer, E. Jean Carroll, sued Trump in November, saying he raped her in early 1996 after a chance meeting at the Bergdorf Goodman department store. He has repeatedly and emphatically denied it in language sure to be highlighted for a jury that will decide whether the rape occurred and if Trump defamed Carroll with his comments.
The rape claims were made immediately after a temporary state law took effect allowing adult rape victims to sue their abusers, even if attacks happened decades ago.
Trump's lawyers did not respond Monday to requests for comment on Kaplan's order.
Attorney Roberta Kaplan, no relation to the judge, said Carroll “intends to be present for the entire trial.”
In his order, the judge asked “each party” to notify him in writing whether he or she intends to attend the entire trial. If not, he asked to be told what dates and times each individual will be absent.
The judge said the order was not to be construed to suggest whether either side is obliged to be present throughout the trial or what legal consequences could result from a decision not to be present the entire time.
The judge was likely interested in learning exactly when Trump might be in court because of the special security arrangements that would be required for a Secret Service-protected former president who is campaigning for a second term in office.
Last week, Trump arrived in a motorcade for a New York state court arraignment where he pleaded not guilty to a 34-count felony indictment charging him with breaking the law in a quest to silence women who claimed extramarital affairs with him years before his successful campaign for the presidency on the Republican ticket in 2016.
Judge Kaplan cited public comments Trump made after the appearance, as he rejected a request by lawyers on both sides in the rape case to be told the names of anonymous jurors. Recently, he ruled that the jury will be anonymous, citing in part the “strong likelihood” that there could be “harassment or worse” of jurors by Trump supporters.
“The likelihood of such difficulties since the Court made those findings only has increased. That is so in view of Mr. Trump’s public statements," he said, citing media reports characterizing Trump's statements as attacks against the presiding judge over his criminal case.
The judge also cited "the threats reportedly then made, presumably by Mr. Trump’s supporters, against that judge and members of his family." In a footnote, the judge cited media reports including a story that said the judge in the criminal case got death threats after Trump's arrest.
In October, Trump underwent a videotaped deposition in which he was questioned about Carroll's claims, which were first made publicly in a 2019 memoir by the former longtime Elle magazine columnist.
In the deposition, Trump was dismissive of Carroll’s claims, saying: “Physically she’s not my type.”
Even if Trump decides not to attend the trial, it is likely that significant portions of his deposition will be watched by the jury.
In recent weeks, the judge has denied requests by Trump's lawyers to exclude testimony from two women who made sexual abuse claims against Trump in circumstances similar to those alleged by Carroll and from two individuals who worked at the department store at the time the rape allegedly occurred.
He also has ruled that jurors can hear misogynistic remarks Trump made about women in 2005 on an “Access Hollywood” tape.
The Associated Press generally does not identify people who allege they have been sexually assaulted, unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
2023
I feel like they seem way more upset at Anheuser-Busch than they do the Justice Department.gimmesometruth27 said:
the best they have been able to do is make angry videos from the front seat of their pickup truck.The Juggler said:
I was told this country was in up in arms over this indictment and was going to fight for President Trump?mickeyrat said:The Juggler said:Did I miss all the death, destruction and protests over Trump's indictment? When's that supposed to take place?
they'll have it ready in 2 weeks.
plus they know biden will not pardon them so they do not want to get in to toooooo much trouble.www.myspace.com0 -
Don't they have the right to be upset? I mean, they are trying to groom kids who drink beer. How is an elementary school student expected to navigate the confusion of youth, trying to understand which beer to drink when they have cross dressers and trans-activists on the limited edition cans.The Juggler said:
I feel like they seem way more upset at Anheuser-Busch than they do the Justice Department.gimmesometruth27 said:
the best they have been able to do is make angry videos from the front seat of their pickup truck.The Juggler said:
I was told this country was in up in arms over this indictment and was going to fight for President Trump?mickeyrat said:The Juggler said:Did I miss all the death, destruction and protests over Trump's indictment? When's that supposed to take place?
they'll have it ready in 2 weeks.
plus they know biden will not pardon them so they do not want to get in to toooooo much trouble.0 -
less likely to face prison for shooting up bud light......The Juggler said:
I feel like they seem way more upset at Anheuser-Busch than they do the Justice Department.gimmesometruth27 said:
the best they have been able to do is make angry videos from the front seat of their pickup truck.The Juggler said:
I was told this country was in up in arms over this indictment and was going to fight for President Trump?mickeyrat said:The Juggler said:Did I miss all the death, destruction and protests over Trump's indictment? When's that supposed to take place?
they'll have it ready in 2 weeks.
plus they know biden will not pardon them so they do not want to get in to toooooo much trouble.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
2023How funny would it be if Miller, Coors and Bud decided to join together for an ad supporting trans people? These maga's would lose their collective god damned minds.
But, perhaps they might discover good beer though....www.myspace.com0 -
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?Merkin Baller said:Lerxst1992 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
How so? Under what circumstances?mace1229 said:
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Go Beavers said:
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”.mace1229 said:
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.Halifax2TheMax said:
I suggest folks read both documents.Go Beavers said:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealedMerkin Baller said:
Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/2011
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."
0 -
mace1229 said:
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?Merkin Baller said:Lerxst1992 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
How so? Under what circumstances?mace1229 said:
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Go Beavers said:
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”.mace1229 said:
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.Halifax2TheMax said:
I suggest folks read both documents.Go Beavers said:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealedMerkin Baller said:
Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/2011
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."
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
mace1229 said:
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?Merkin Baller said:Lerxst1992 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
How so? Under what circumstances?mace1229 said:
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Go Beavers said:
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”.mace1229 said:
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.Halifax2TheMax said:
I suggest folks read both documents.Go Beavers said:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealedMerkin Baller said:
Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/2011
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."
Is it worth noting that in 2011 they didn't offer hush money? That instead they threatened lawsuits against In Touch and allegedly sent goons at her to shut her up (more mafia type behavior), but then in 2016 he suddenly cared enough to pay her to go away?
Any thoughts on why, if the hush money was to protect his image as a business man, did he want to renege on the payments after he won the election?Post edited by Merkin Baller on0 -
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.mickeyrat said:mace1229 said:
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?Merkin Baller said:Lerxst1992 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
How so? Under what circumstances?mace1229 said:
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Go Beavers said:
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”.mace1229 said:
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.Halifax2TheMax said:
I suggest folks read both documents.Go Beavers said:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealedMerkin Baller said:
Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/2011
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."
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
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.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
According to what we read, it was In Touch that they threatened to sue, not Daniels.mace1229 said:
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.mickeyrat said:mace1229 said:
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?Merkin Baller said:Lerxst1992 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
How so? Under what circumstances?mace1229 said:
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Go Beavers said:
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”.mace1229 said:
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.Halifax2TheMax said:
I suggest folks read both documents.Go Beavers said:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealedMerkin Baller said:
Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/2011
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."
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
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.
Per Daniels, they threatened her in 2011 by sending goons who told her to leave Trump alone. That's not buying someone's silence, that's intimidation. But then in 2016 they cared enough to give her money to go away, a pretty stark difference from how they handled her in 2011.
What was different in 2016 than 2011?
Again, I ask:
Why, if the hush money was to protect his image as a business man & unrelated to the election, did he want to renege on the payments after he won the election?
0 -
2025
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your sayingmace1229 said:
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.mickeyrat said:mace1229 said:
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?Merkin Baller said:Lerxst1992 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
How so? Under what circumstances?mace1229 said:
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Go Beavers said:
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”.mace1229 said:
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.Halifax2TheMax said:
I suggest folks read both documents.Go Beavers said:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealedMerkin Baller said:
Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/2011
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."
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
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.jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
Bias aside, does anyone actually think he wouldn’t have gotten elected because of the stormy Daniels story? Did the “grab them by the pussy” tape affect him at all? From what I remember , nothing seemed to phase his voters then and it’s only gotten more absurd since.0
-
2025
No they would vote for him even if there was videos of him actually assaulting women! Remember he was sent here by God himself to save America from evil leftists liberalsnicknyr15 said:Bias aside, does anyone actually think he wouldn’t have gotten elected because of the stormy Daniels story? Did the “grab them by the pussy” tape affect him at all? From what I remember , nothing seemed to phase his voters then and it’s only gotten more absurd since.jesus greets me looks just like me ....0 -
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.josevolution said:
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your sayingmace1229 said:
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.mickeyrat said:mace1229 said:
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?Merkin Baller said:Lerxst1992 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
How so? Under what circumstances?mace1229 said:
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Go Beavers said:
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”.mace1229 said:
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.Halifax2TheMax said:
I suggest folks read both documents.Go Beavers said:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealedMerkin Baller said:
Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/2011
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."
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
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.
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.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
I don't know, maybe he's a cheap skate? Maybe he figured the threats worked before, maybe they would work again?Merkin Baller said:
According to what we read, it was In Touch that they threatened to sue, not Daniels.mace1229 said:
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.mickeyrat said:mace1229 said:
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?Merkin Baller said:Lerxst1992 said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Halifax2TheMax said:
How so? Under what circumstances?mace1229 said:
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be.Halifax2TheMax said:
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.mace1229 said:
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.Lerxst1992 said:mace1229 said:
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.Go Beavers said:
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”.mace1229 said:
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.Halifax2TheMax said:
I suggest folks read both documents.Go Beavers said:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealedMerkin Baller said:
Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president?
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/2011
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."
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
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.
Per Daniels, they threatened her in 2011 by sending goons who told her to leave Trump alone. That's not buying someone's silence, that's intimidation. But then in 2016 they cared enough to give her money to go away, a pretty stark difference from how they handled her in 2011.
What was different in 2016 than 2011?
Again, I ask:
Why, if the hush money was to protect his image as a business man & unrelated to the election, did he want to renege on the payments after he won the election?
But the election was already over by then. How can you point to the fact he didn't want to pay her, but eventually did as evidence that it wasn't personally motived and only political when the election was already over? nIf it was just purely political, wouldn't he had just told her to go ahead and sell the story?Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
I think that's hard to say. He won a few states by a few votes. He needed an inside straight and got it. Would this have hurt his election chances? I feel confident saying that it being out there was more likely to hurt it than help, that's for sure.nicknyr15 said:Bias aside, does anyone actually think he wouldn’t have gotten elected because of the stormy Daniels story? Did the “grab them by the pussy” tape affect him at all? From what I remember , nothing seemed to phase his voters then and it’s only gotten more absurd since.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help