Trump sues former counsel Michael Cohen for $500 million By Mariana Alfaro April 12, 2023 at 16:04 ET Former president Donald Trump is suing his former attorney Michael Cohen — a key witness in the criminal case against the former president — for $500 million over allegations that Cohen violated their attorney-client relationship and breached a confidentiality agreement. According to a 32-page lawsuit filed by Trump’s lawyers Wednesday, Trump accuses Cohen of revealing “confidences” in an “embarrassing or detrimental way.” Cohen, the suit alleges, also breached a confidentiality agreement and spread “falsehoods” about Trump “with malicious intent and to wholly self-serving ends.” The lawsuit comes after Trump pleaded not guilty in a Manhattan court April 4 to 34 felony charges that he falsified business records to conceal $130,000 in reimbursement payments to Cohen, who paid adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016 trying to keep her from publicly claiming she had an affair with Trump. Cohen is at the center of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation into Trump’s payment. Trump denies the affair and maintains that Daniels was an opportunist shaking him down because of his stature and his vulnerability as a presidential candidate. “This is an action arising from [Cohen’s] multiple breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breaches of contract by virtue of [Cohen’s] past service as Plaintiff’s employee and attorney,” the lawsuit states. In a statement, Lanny J. Davis, an attorney for Cohen, described the lawsuit as “frivolous” and accused Trump of “using and abusing the judicial system as a form of harassment and intimidation against Michael Cohen.”
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 '14
No matter what, it will always, ALWAYS, circle back to Hillary Fucking Clinton. Good god almighty.
false
you shouldn't laugh or mock if you can't/won't answer the question. mace obviously isn't a "lock her up" nutcase. he had a LEGITIMATE question about the difference, which you couldn't/wouldn't answer. so you "lol".
this isn't one of those cases of a magat throwing out hillary clinton because that's what they do. it was because the cases looked similar to the average joe just having a conversation.
I never said he was a "magat" (your word). Republicans have used her as their bogeywoman for decades prior to maga even existed. I don't see any difference here.
I know you didn't say he was one. I was just saying this isn't your run-of-the-mill moron waving the "but hillary's emails" flag. mace isn't using her as his bogeywoman. he was asking legit questions about the difference (I didn't know the difference either). Halifax finally answered the difference is between FEC violations and NYS law. but you just dismissed it without providing any reason why.
just curious why a discussion can't be had without the constant condescension if it doesn't fit the "but it's trump!" line of thinking.
Because it stinks of the ol' "whataboutism" schtick that has diluted so many conversations over the last decade or so. It's just tiresome to me. Sorry.
dude's been writing fucking intelligent essays in his back and forth on the subject. hardly stinks of whataboutism.
What about Hillary seems like whataboutism to me. Sorry Hugh! Maybe drop the subject since the difference has been explained now?
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,357
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 '14
Aren’t the falsified business documents trump is charged with related to the campaign funds? And wasn’t Hilary based in NY too when her campaign incorrectly recorded her campaign funds? Which I why I thought both could be considered similar.
I thought Hilary personally paid the 8k fine,, which meant she was somehow also personally responsible for the other payments or records as well.
If it was all from the campaign funds and she didn’t sign off on it personally, then I can see how it is different. Thanks for clarifying.
Hilary was paying for oppo research (fun fact, the Steele Dossier was originated by the GOP). Oppo research is sleazy but it’s done all the time.
Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.
Are these comparable? Seems absurd.
Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,357
edited April 2023
full trump supporter now. at this point its just trolling.
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 '14
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,469
Hilary was paying for oppo research (fun fact, the Steele Dossier was originated by the GOP). Oppo research is sleazy but it’s done all the time.
Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.
Are these comparable? Seems absurd.
Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare.
Hilary was paying for oppo research (fun fact, the Steele Dossier was originated by the GOP). Oppo research is sleazy but it’s done all the time.
Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.
Are these comparable? Seems absurd.
Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare.
Neither of those things are illegal. The way they reported it was. Trump didn't want people to find out about his affair, Clinton didn't want people to know she (or her campaign) was funding the dossier research. Both filed false paperwork to hide where their spending was going. I still see a lot of similarities. The difference is Trump handled it personally, while Clinton's campaign handle it and not Hilary herself.
Post edited by mace1229 on
0
Options
Kat
There's a lot to be said for nowhere. Posts: 4,777
Trump sues former counsel Michael Cohen for $500 million By Mariana Alfaro April 12, 2023 at 16:04 ET Former president Donald Trump is suing his former attorney Michael Cohen — a key witness in the criminal case against the former president — for $500 million over allegations that Cohen violated their attorney-client relationship and breached a confidentiality agreement. According to a 32-page lawsuit filed by Trump’s lawyers Wednesday, Trump accuses Cohen of revealing “confidences” in an “embarrassing or detrimental way.” Cohen, the suit alleges, also breached a confidentiality agreement and spread “falsehoods” about Trump “with malicious intent and to wholly self-serving ends.” The lawsuit comes after Trump pleaded not guilty in a Manhattan court April 4 to 34 felony charges that he falsified business records to conceal $130,000 in reimbursement payments to Cohen, who paid adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016 trying to keep her from publicly claiming she had an affair with Trump. Cohen is at the center of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation into Trump’s payment. Trump denies the affair and maintains that Daniels was an opportunist shaking him down because of his stature and his vulnerability as a presidential candidate. “This is an action arising from [Cohen’s] multiple breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breaches of contract by virtue of [Cohen’s] past service as Plaintiff’s employee and attorney,” the lawsuit states. In a statement, Lanny J. Davis, an attorney for Cohen, described the lawsuit as “frivolous” and accused Trump of “using and abusing the judicial system as a form of harassment and intimidation against Michael Cohen.”
continues.....
Doesn't this open up all kinds of revelations during discovery because he has to prove his accusations? I'm not sure he thought this through but I don't think he has the best attorneys or takes any advice.
Trump sues former counsel Michael Cohen for $500 million By Mariana Alfaro April 12, 2023 at 16:04 ET Former president Donald Trump is suing his former attorney Michael Cohen — a key witness in the criminal case against the former president — for $500 million over allegations that Cohen violated their attorney-client relationship and breached a confidentiality agreement. According to a 32-page lawsuit filed by Trump’s lawyers Wednesday, Trump accuses Cohen of revealing “confidences” in an “embarrassing or detrimental way.” Cohen, the suit alleges, also breached a confidentiality agreement and spread “falsehoods” about Trump “with malicious intent and to wholly self-serving ends.” The lawsuit comes after Trump pleaded not guilty in a Manhattan court April 4 to 34 felony charges that he falsified business records to conceal $130,000 in reimbursement payments to Cohen, who paid adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016 trying to keep her from publicly claiming she had an affair with Trump. Cohen is at the center of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation into Trump’s payment. Trump denies the affair and maintains that Daniels was an opportunist shaking him down because of his stature and his vulnerability as a presidential candidate. “This is an action arising from [Cohen’s] multiple breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breaches of contract by virtue of [Cohen’s] past service as Plaintiff’s employee and attorney,” the lawsuit states. In a statement, Lanny J. Davis, an attorney for Cohen, described the lawsuit as “frivolous” and accused Trump of “using and abusing the judicial system as a form of harassment and intimidation against Michael Cohen.”
continues.....
Doesn't this open up all kinds of revelations during discovery because he has to prove his accusations? I'm not sure he thought this through but I don't think he has the best attorneys or takes any advice.
agreed. this is going to potentially be as dumb as the mick mars lawsuit vs motley crue. did not think it out very well.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Trump sues former counsel Michael Cohen for $500 million By Mariana Alfaro April 12, 2023 at 16:04 ET Former president Donald Trump is suing his former attorney Michael Cohen — a key witness in the criminal case against the former president — for $500 million over allegations that Cohen violated their attorney-client relationship and breached a confidentiality agreement. According to a 32-page lawsuit filed by Trump’s lawyers Wednesday, Trump accuses Cohen of revealing “confidences” in an “embarrassing or detrimental way.” Cohen, the suit alleges, also breached a confidentiality agreement and spread “falsehoods” about Trump “with malicious intent and to wholly self-serving ends.” The lawsuit comes after Trump pleaded not guilty in a Manhattan court April 4 to 34 felony charges that he falsified business records to conceal $130,000 in reimbursement payments to Cohen, who paid adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016 trying to keep her from publicly claiming she had an affair with Trump. Cohen is at the center of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation into Trump’s payment. Trump denies the affair and maintains that Daniels was an opportunist shaking him down because of his stature and his vulnerability as a presidential candidate. “This is an action arising from [Cohen’s] multiple breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breaches of contract by virtue of [Cohen’s] past service as Plaintiff’s employee and attorney,” the lawsuit states. In a statement, Lanny J. Davis, an attorney for Cohen, described the lawsuit as “frivolous” and accused Trump of “using and abusing the judicial system as a form of harassment and intimidation against Michael Cohen.”
continues.....
Doesn't this open up all kinds of revelations during discovery because he has to prove his accusations? I'm not sure he thought this through but I don't think he has the best attorneys or takes any advice.
It certainly does & he doesn't think many things through, so it checks out.
I LOVE MUSIC.
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,469
Hilary was paying for oppo research (fun fact, the Steele Dossier was originated by the GOP). Oppo research is sleazy but it’s done all the time.
Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.
Are these comparable? Seems absurd.
Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare.
Neither of those things are illegal. The way they reported it was. Trump didn't want people to find out about his affair, Clinton didn't want people to know she (or her campaign) was funding the dossier research. Both filed false paperwork to hide where their spending was going. I still see a lot of similarities. The difference is Trump handled it personally, while Clinton's campaign handle it and not Hilary herself.
Why do you think not even Donald Trump is saying "But Hillary did the same thing?"
Hilary was paying for oppo research (fun fact, the Steele Dossier was originated by the GOP). Oppo research is sleazy but it’s done all the time.
Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.
Are these comparable? Seems absurd.
Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare.
Neither of those things are illegal. The way they reported it was. Trump didn't want people to find out about his affair, Clinton didn't want people to know she (or her campaign) was funding the dossier research. Both filed false paperwork to hide where their spending was going. I still see a lot of similarities. The difference is Trump handled it personally, while Clinton's campaign handle it and not Hilary herself.
Well a huge difference I think you are not recognizing Hilary did report the contribution, but mislabeled it, trump didn’t report it(because he claims it’s not tied to the election ). The Dems believe they were correct, but settled the matter with the FEC to make it go away. It was there for the FEC to find.
Also, didn’t you earlier comment that trump is not facing tax fraud because the legal fees were to keep his business reputation intact, so he can properly deduct on his business taxes? Now he handled it personally? The indictment alleges the business handled the bribe, so I am assuming they have proof of that. If so, the burden falls on him to prove the business angle, as that’s how tax laws work. If it’s personal, and if he is allegedly a serial cheater, why has he never ever bribed a mistress in his 78 years when an election is not days away and a vulgar recording days before?
mace, I give you a ton of credit here for standing up at the plate day after day in liberalland, but I’m not so sure I’m reading impartiality in these comments.
Hilary was paying for oppo research (fun fact, the Steele Dossier was originated by the GOP). Oppo research is sleazy but it’s done all the time.
Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.
Are these comparable? Seems absurd.
Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare.
Neither of those things are illegal. The way they reported it was. Trump didn't want people to find out about his affair, Clinton didn't want people to know she (or her campaign) was funding the dossier research. Both filed false paperwork to hide where their spending was going. I still see a lot of similarities. The difference is Trump handled it personally, while Clinton's campaign handle it and not Hilary herself.
Well a huge difference I think you are not recognizing Hilary did report the contribution, but mislabeled it, trump didn’t report it(because he claims it’s not tied to the election ). The Dems believe they were correct, but settled the matter with the FEC to make it go away. It was there for the FEC to find.
Also, didn’t you earlier comment that trump is not facing tax fraud because the legal fees were to keep his business reputation intact, so he can properly deduct on his business taxes? Now he handled it personally? The indictment alleges the business handled the bribe, so I am assuming they have proof of that. If so, the burden falls on him to prove the business angle, as that’s how tax laws work. If it’s personal, and if he is allegedly a serial cheater, why has he never ever bribed a mistress in his 78 years when an election is not days away and a vulgar recording days before?
mace, I give you a ton of credit here for standing up at the plate day after day in liberalland, but I’m not so sure I’m reading impartiality in these comments.
I believe I said if they were to pursue tax fraud charges my prediction is the defense would say it was too help his image for and in return the business. I don't know if that is or not a reason for any lack of charges. Just what their defense will be if they are accused of claiming the payment on their taxes as a business expense or whatever it was.
I'm not too familiar with how multi-million dollar companies work. But I do know they have copies of checks signed by Trump. Whether it was trump signing for his own personal account or for his business account, I didn't think it would make a difference in this case. That's why I used that interchangeably. He was still ultimately the person responsible for the finances if he's signing the checks.
Of course Hilary and the DNC are not going to admit any fault. But it seems pretty clear. They paid an attorney who hired a group to create the dossier. They claimed it as "legal consultation" and didn't pay Steele directly, they paid him through their attorneys. Its pretty clear what they did and why. But no one should be surprised they denied it, especially since the fines are so low and would cost more to fight it. Makes an easy excuse to say I'll just pay but we didn't do anything wrong.
Hilary was paying for oppo research (fun fact, the Steele Dossier was originated by the GOP). Oppo research is sleazy but it’s done all the time.
Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.
Are these comparable? Seems absurd.
Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare.
Neither of those things are illegal. The way they reported it was. Trump didn't want people to find out about his affair, Clinton didn't want people to know she (or her campaign) was funding the dossier research. Both filed false paperwork to hide where their spending was going. I still see a lot of similarities. The difference is Trump handled it personally, while Clinton's campaign handle it and not Hilary herself.
Well a huge difference I think you are not recognizing Hilary did report the contribution, but mislabeled it, trump didn’t report it(because he claims it’s not tied to the election ). The Dems believe they were correct, but settled the matter with the FEC to make it go away. It was there for the FEC to find.
Also, didn’t you earlier comment that trump is not facing tax fraud because the legal fees were to keep his business reputation intact, so he can properly deduct on his business taxes? Now he handled it personally? The indictment alleges the business handled the bribe, so I am assuming they have proof of that. If so, the burden falls on him to prove the business angle, as that’s how tax laws work. If it’s personal, and if he is allegedly a serial cheater, why has he never ever bribed a mistress in his 78 years when an election is not days away and a vulgar recording days before?
mace, I give you a ton of credit here for standing up at the plate day after day in liberalland, but I’m not so sure I’m reading impartiality in these comments.
I believe I said if they were to pursue tax fraud charges my prediction is the defense would say it was too help his image for and in return the business. I don't know if that is or not a reason for any lack of charges. Just what their defense will be if they are accused of claiming the payment on their taxes as a business expense or whatever it was.
I'm not too familiar with how multi-million dollar companies work. But I do know they have copies of checks signed by Trump. Whether it was trump signing for his own personal account or for his business account, I didn't think it would make a difference in this case. That's why I used that interchangeably. He was still ultimately the person responsible for the finances if he's signing the checks.
Of course Hilary and the DNC are not going to admit any fault. But it seems pretty clear. They paid an attorney who hired a group to create the dossier. They claimed it as "legal consultation" and didn't pay Steele directly, they paid him through their attorneys. Its pretty clear what they did and why. But no one should be surprised they denied it, especially since the fines are so low and would cost more to fight it. Makes an easy excuse to say I'll just pay but we didn't do anything wrong.
Makes all the difference in the world. POOTWH's mistake was NOT paying it out of his "personal" account, if he even has one, and instead paying for it from his "business" account. And then falsifying business records that are required to be filed with NYS and disguising said payments as "business expenses," "legal fees," for an attorney that was not on a retainer. In what way does this compare with Hillary's case?
If you still think this is the same, and if its "no big deal" or "why one and not the other," POOTWH was offered the opportunity to clear everything up before the Grand Jury. Had he done so, maybe he wouldn't have been indicted?
And I'll add, POOTWH's shit for brains should have paid for it out of his personal expenses and when exposed, admitted it. If he had done so, we wouldn't be discussing it and that POS wouldn't be indicted for 34 counts of falsifying NYS business records.
Hypothetically (of course)-- but if Trump gets sentence to prison for one of these indictments, how would his secret service detail work?
That's a helluva question.
I'd assume there'd be some kind of special accommodation, either home confinement to Mar-I-Lieo with an ankle bracelet, limited family/guest interaction and 100,000 pages of having to write "I will not............... ever again" or, a supermax facility where he'd be segregated and controlled to the extent that his only human physical interaction is with prison staff and his attorneys or a minimum security "country club" type facility where they can stick him in his own fenced yard and trailer, separate from the general population.
I'd also assume that once an indictment is issued and the potential punishment for the offense(s) charged, if found guilty, are identified that the DOJ and Bureau of Prisons would identify how they'll handle it. All of this said, POOTWH will probably die before he sees the inside of a prison or is placed under home confinement as it drags out the appeals process. Jared Dear Boy has $2B to ensure that.
Hilary was paying for oppo research (fun fact, the Steele Dossier was originated by the GOP). Oppo research is sleazy but it’s done all the time.
Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.
Are these comparable? Seems absurd.
Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare.
Neither of those things are illegal. The way they reported it was. Trump didn't want people to find out about his affair, Clinton didn't want people to know she (or her campaign) was funding the dossier research. Both filed false paperwork to hide where their spending was going. I still see a lot of similarities. The difference is Trump handled it personally, while Clinton's campaign handle it and not Hilary herself.
Well a huge difference I think you are not recognizing Hilary did report the contribution, but mislabeled it, trump didn’t report it(because he claims it’s not tied to the election ). The Dems believe they were correct, but settled the matter with the FEC to make it go away. It was there for the FEC to find.
Also, didn’t you earlier comment that trump is not facing tax fraud because the legal fees were to keep his business reputation intact, so he can properly deduct on his business taxes? Now he handled it personally? The indictment alleges the business handled the bribe, so I am assuming they have proof of that. If so, the burden falls on him to prove the business angle, as that’s how tax laws work. If it’s personal, and if he is allegedly a serial cheater, why has he never ever bribed a mistress in his 78 years when an election is not days away and a vulgar recording days before?
mace, I give you a ton of credit here for standing up at the plate day after day in liberalland, but I’m not so sure I’m reading impartiality in these comments.
I believe I said if they were to pursue tax fraud charges my prediction is the defense would say it was too help his image for and in return the business. I don't know if that is or not a reason for any lack of charges. Just what their defense will be if they are accused of claiming the payment on their taxes as a business expense or whatever it was.
I'm not too familiar with how multi-million dollar companies work. But I do know they have copies of checks signed by Trump. Whether it was trump signing for his own personal account or for his business account, I didn't think it would make a difference in this case. That's why I used that interchangeably. He was still ultimately the person responsible for the finances if he's signing the checks.
Of course Hilary and the DNC are not going to admit any fault. But it seems pretty clear. They paid an attorney who hired a group to create the dossier. They claimed it as "legal consultation" and didn't pay Steele directly, they paid him through their attorneys. Its pretty clear what they did and why. But no one should be surprised they denied it, especially since the fines are so low and would cost more to fight it. Makes an easy excuse to say I'll just pay but we didn't do anything wrong.
Makes all the difference in the world. POOTWH's mistake was NOT paying it out of his "personal" account, if he even has one, and instead paying for it from his "business" account. And then falsifying business records that are required to be filed with NYS and disguising said payments as "business expenses," "legal fees," for an attorney that was not on a retainer. In what way does this compare with Hillary's case?
If you still think this is the same, and if its "no big deal" or "why one and not the other," POOTWH was offered the opportunity to clear everything up before the Grand Jury. Had he done so, maybe he wouldn't have been indicted?
And I'll add, POOTWH's shit for brains should have paid for it out of his personal expenses and when exposed, admitted it. If he had done so, we wouldn't be discussing it and that POS wouldn't be indicted for 34 counts of falsifying NYS business records.
The indictment alleges the payoff was claimed as part of trumps business records, and im guessing that means he took a tax deduction for it.
I think the trial would favor the party with the best evidence. If the phone and email records show minimal contact with stormy before the genital tape was released and alot in the week afterwards (as Cohen claims) and if there is evidence the offer was $20k before, then shot up to $130k after, the prosecution has a good case.
One would think there is solid evidence here, given that the defendant is a former President.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,357
Hilary was paying for oppo research (fun fact, the Steele Dossier was originated by the GOP). Oppo research is sleazy but it’s done all the time.
Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.
Are these comparable? Seems absurd.
Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare.
Neither of those things are illegal. The way they reported it was. Trump didn't want people to find out about his affair, Clinton didn't want people to know she (or her campaign) was funding the dossier research. Both filed false paperwork to hide where their spending was going. I still see a lot of similarities. The difference is Trump handled it personally, while Clinton's campaign handle it and not Hilary herself.
Well a huge difference I think you are not recognizing Hilary did report the contribution, but mislabeled it, trump didn’t report it(because he claims it’s not tied to the election ). The Dems believe they were correct, but settled the matter with the FEC to make it go away. It was there for the FEC to find.
Also, didn’t you earlier comment that trump is not facing tax fraud because the legal fees were to keep his business reputation intact, so he can properly deduct on his business taxes? Now he handled it personally? The indictment alleges the business handled the bribe, so I am assuming they have proof of that. If so, the burden falls on him to prove the business angle, as that’s how tax laws work. If it’s personal, and if he is allegedly a serial cheater, why has he never ever bribed a mistress in his 78 years when an election is not days away and a vulgar recording days before?
mace, I give you a ton of credit here for standing up at the plate day after day in liberalland, but I’m not so sure I’m reading impartiality in these comments.
I believe I said if they were to pursue tax fraud charges my prediction is the defense would say it was too help his image for and in return the business. I don't know if that is or not a reason for any lack of charges. Just what their defense will be if they are accused of claiming the payment on their taxes as a business expense or whatever it was.
I'm not too familiar with how multi-million dollar companies work. But I do know they have copies of checks signed by Trump. Whether it was trump signing for his own personal account or for his business account, I didn't think it would make a difference in this case. That's why I used that interchangeably. He was still ultimately the person responsible for the finances if he's signing the checks.
Of course Hilary and the DNC are not going to admit any fault. But it seems pretty clear. They paid an attorney who hired a group to create the dossier. They claimed it as "legal consultation" and didn't pay Steele directly, they paid him through their attorneys. Its pretty clear what they did and why. But no one should be surprised they denied it, especially since the fines are so low and would cost more to fight it. Makes an easy excuse to say I'll just pay but we didn't do anything wrong.
Makes all the difference in the world. POOTWH's mistake was NOT paying it out of his "personal" account, if he even has one, and instead paying for it from his "business" account. And then falsifying business records that are required to be filed with NYS and disguising said payments as "business expenses," "legal fees," for an attorney that was not on a retainer. In what way does this compare with Hillary's case?
If you still think this is the same, and if its "no big deal" or "why one and not the other," POOTWH was offered the opportunity to clear everything up before the Grand Jury. Had he done so, maybe he wouldn't have been indicted?
And I'll add, POOTWH's shit for brains should have paid for it out of his personal expenses and when exposed, admitted it. If he had done so, we wouldn't be discussing it and that POS wouldn't be indicted for 34 counts of falsifying NYS business records.
The indictment alleges the payoff was claimed as part of trumps business records, and im guessing that means he took a tax deduction for it.
I think the trial would favor the party with the best evidence. If the phone and email records show minimal contact with stormy before the genital tape was released and alot in the week afterwards (as Cohen claims) and if there is evidence the offer was $20k before, then shot up to $130k after, the prosecution has a good case.
One would think there is solid evidence here, given that the defendant is a former President.
find out soon enough since Bragg has his fedral returns as well I suspect access to NYS returns ....
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 '14
And there's the difference with the FEC having split on partisan lines to charge POOTWH like they did Hillary. Hillary, of course, settled.
The most obvious starting point here is Manhattan, where District Attorney Alvin Bragg already obtained an indictment against Trump on 34 felony charges of falsifying business records. Those charges were felonies because the alleged falsification was in service to another crime, possibly violations of state or federal election law centered on Trump’s efforts to bury a story of an alleged affair before the 2016 election. (The Federal Election Commission declined to recommend federal charges against Trump, splitting a 2-2 decision on partisan lines. Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to such charges in 2018.)
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 '14
Hypothetically (of course)-- but if Trump gets sentence to prison for one of these indictments, how would his secret service detail work?
I don't see him, or anyone of his level, receiving actual prison time for the complications of protection like that. I would guess, of it were to come down to some sort of sentence, it would be house arrest or something like that.
Hilary was paying for oppo research (fun fact, the Steele Dossier was originated by the GOP). Oppo research is sleazy but it’s done all the time.
Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.
Are these comparable? Seems absurd.
Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare.
Neither of those things are illegal. The way they reported it was. Trump didn't want people to find out about his affair, Clinton didn't want people to know she (or her campaign) was funding the dossier research. Both filed false paperwork to hide where their spending was going. I still see a lot of similarities. The difference is Trump handled it personally, while Clinton's campaign handle it and not Hilary herself.
Well a huge difference I think you are not recognizing Hilary did report the contribution, but mislabeled it, trump didn’t report it(because he claims it’s not tied to the election ). The Dems believe they were correct, but settled the matter with the FEC to make it go away. It was there for the FEC to find.
Also, didn’t you earlier comment that trump is not facing tax fraud because the legal fees were to keep his business reputation intact, so he can properly deduct on his business taxes? Now he handled it personally? The indictment alleges the business handled the bribe, so I am assuming they have proof of that. If so, the burden falls on him to prove the business angle, as that’s how tax laws work. If it’s personal, and if he is allegedly a serial cheater, why has he never ever bribed a mistress in his 78 years when an election is not days away and a vulgar recording days before?
mace, I give you a ton of credit here for standing up at the plate day after day in liberalland, but I’m not so sure I’m reading impartiality in these comments.
I believe I said if they were to pursue tax fraud charges my prediction is the defense would say it was too help his image for and in return the business. I don't know if that is or not a reason for any lack of charges. Just what their defense will be if they are accused of claiming the payment on their taxes as a business expense or whatever it was.
I'm not too familiar with how multi-million dollar companies work. But I do know they have copies of checks signed by Trump. Whether it was trump signing for his own personal account or for his business account, I didn't think it would make a difference in this case. That's why I used that interchangeably. He was still ultimately the person responsible for the finances if he's signing the checks.
Of course Hilary and the DNC are not going to admit any fault. But it seems pretty clear. They paid an attorney who hired a group to create the dossier. They claimed it as "legal consultation" and didn't pay Steele directly, they paid him through their attorneys. Its pretty clear what they did and why. But no one should be surprised they denied it, especially since the fines are so low and would cost more to fight it. Makes an easy excuse to say I'll just pay but we didn't do anything wrong.
Makes all the difference in the world. POOTWH's mistake was NOT paying it out of his "personal" account, if he even has one, and instead paying for it from his "business" account. And then falsifying business records that are required to be filed with NYS and disguising said payments as "business expenses," "legal fees," for an attorney that was not on a retainer. In what way does this compare with Hillary's case?
If you still think this is the same, and if its "no big deal" or "why one and not the other," POOTWH was offered the opportunity to clear everything up before the Grand Jury. Had he done so, maybe he wouldn't have been indicted?
And I'll add, POOTWH's shit for brains should have paid for it out of his personal expenses and when exposed, admitted it. If he had done so, we wouldn't be discussing it and that POS wouldn't be indicted for 34 counts of falsifying NYS business records.
I wish I had this problem, but don't billion, even multi-million airs pay for much of their personal life through their business? That's how they end up paying almost no income tax, because their actual "income" is very low, but the business is what pays for everything. I always thought that was common, but never paid much attention to it since I'm only about $999,935,000 away from being a billionaire and have to worry about it. . Is it tax fraud if the business buys your car and you don't report it as income?
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,357
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 '14
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,469
Hypothetically (of course)-- but if Trump gets sentence to prison for one of these indictments, how would his secret service detail work?
I don't see him, or anyone of his level, receiving actual prison time for the complications of protection like that. I would guess, of it were to come down to some sort of sentence, it would be house arrest or something like that.
Yeah, mostly agreed. That's why I said it's a hypothetical question. It's an interesting one to ponder though...
Hilary was paying for oppo research (fun fact, the Steele Dossier was originated by the GOP). Oppo research is sleazy but it’s done all the time.
Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.
Are these comparable? Seems absurd.
Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare.
Neither of those things are illegal. The way they reported it was. Trump didn't want people to find out about his affair, Clinton didn't want people to know she (or her campaign) was funding the dossier research. Both filed false paperwork to hide where their spending was going. I still see a lot of similarities. The difference is Trump handled it personally, while Clinton's campaign handle it and not Hilary herself.
Well a huge difference I think you are not recognizing Hilary did report the contribution, but mislabeled it, trump didn’t report it(because he claims it’s not tied to the election ). The Dems believe they were correct, but settled the matter with the FEC to make it go away. It was there for the FEC to find.
Also, didn’t you earlier comment that trump is not facing tax fraud because the legal fees were to keep his business reputation intact, so he can properly deduct on his business taxes? Now he handled it personally? The indictment alleges the business handled the bribe, so I am assuming they have proof of that. If so, the burden falls on him to prove the business angle, as that’s how tax laws work. If it’s personal, and if he is allegedly a serial cheater, why has he never ever bribed a mistress in his 78 years when an election is not days away and a vulgar recording days before?
mace, I give you a ton of credit here for standing up at the plate day after day in liberalland, but I’m not so sure I’m reading impartiality in these comments.
I believe I said if they were to pursue tax fraud charges my prediction is the defense would say it was too help his image for and in return the business. I don't know if that is or not a reason for any lack of charges. Just what their defense will be if they are accused of claiming the payment on their taxes as a business expense or whatever it was.
I'm not too familiar with how multi-million dollar companies work. But I do know they have copies of checks signed by Trump. Whether it was trump signing for his own personal account or for his business account, I didn't think it would make a difference in this case. That's why I used that interchangeably. He was still ultimately the person responsible for the finances if he's signing the checks.
Of course Hilary and the DNC are not going to admit any fault. But it seems pretty clear. They paid an attorney who hired a group to create the dossier. They claimed it as "legal consultation" and didn't pay Steele directly, they paid him through their attorneys. Its pretty clear what they did and why. But no one should be surprised they denied it, especially since the fines are so low and would cost more to fight it. Makes an easy excuse to say I'll just pay but we didn't do anything wrong.
Makes all the difference in the world. POOTWH's mistake was NOT paying it out of his "personal" account, if he even has one, and instead paying for it from his "business" account. And then falsifying business records that are required to be filed with NYS and disguising said payments as "business expenses," "legal fees," for an attorney that was not on a retainer. In what way does this compare with Hillary's case?
If you still think this is the same, and if its "no big deal" or "why one and not the other," POOTWH was offered the opportunity to clear everything up before the Grand Jury. Had he done so, maybe he wouldn't have been indicted?
And I'll add, POOTWH's shit for brains should have paid for it out of his personal expenses and when exposed, admitted it. If he had done so, we wouldn't be discussing it and that POS wouldn't be indicted for 34 counts of falsifying NYS business records.
I wish I had this problem, but don't billion, even multi-million airs pay for much of their personal life through their business? That's how they end up paying almost no income tax, because their actual "income" is very low, but the business is what pays for everything. I always thought that was common, but never paid much attention to it since I'm only about $999,935,000 away from being a billionaire and have to worry about it. . Is it tax fraud if the business buys your car and you don't report it as income?
yes it is
If the business buys the vehicle and you report your personal use and it gets added to your W-2 each year then you are good to go. Willful noncompliance is what gets people in trouble.
It's easy to let some things slip through. If you own a restaurant will anyone really notice if you eat for free or purchase groceries through the business and take them home? Probably not. But if a normal restaurant has a gross profit of 70% and your restaurant is showing 50% that clearly indicates you are doing something fraudulent. Or you are a ridiculously shitty businessman.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Comments
By Mariana Alfaro
April 12, 2023 at 16:04 ET
Former president Donald Trump is suing his former attorney Michael Cohen — a key witness in the criminal case against the former president — for $500 million over allegations that Cohen violated their attorney-client relationship and breached a confidentiality agreement.
According to a 32-page lawsuit filed by Trump’s lawyers Wednesday, Trump accuses Cohen of revealing “confidences” in an “embarrassing or detrimental way.” Cohen, the suit alleges, also breached a confidentiality agreement and spread “falsehoods” about Trump “with malicious intent and to wholly self-serving ends.”
The lawsuit comes after Trump pleaded not guilty in a Manhattan court April 4 to 34 felony charges that he falsified business records to conceal $130,000 in reimbursement payments to Cohen, who paid adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016 trying to keep her from publicly claiming she had an affair with Trump. Cohen is at the center of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s investigation into Trump’s payment.
Trump denies the affair and maintains that Daniels was an opportunist shaking him down because of his stature and his vulnerability as a presidential candidate.
“This is an action arising from [Cohen’s] multiple breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breaches of contract by virtue of [Cohen’s] past service as Plaintiff’s employee and attorney,” the lawsuit states.
In a statement, Lanny J. Davis, an attorney for Cohen, described the lawsuit as “frivolous” and accused Trump of “using and abusing the judicial system as a form of harassment and intimidation against Michael Cohen.”
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 '14
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 '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Trump? He screwed a porn star. A few of them. Did it when his child was entering the world. He then bribed her, moments after a recording came out where he was vulgar about women and moments before an election. He never bribed a porn star at any other time in his 80 year life. But no, he bribed her to save his reputation. Seems far fetched, but some believe that’s a reasonable defense. That’s why we have trials.
Are these comparable? Seems absurd.
Often, we get caught up on technicalities as to whether behavior is deplorable or not. In this case, what trump did was deplorable, whether or not his lawyers can wedge legal technicalities onto the jurors or judge. What Hilary did, started by republicans, was everyday political warfare.
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 '14
amundo
Both filed false paperwork to hide where their spending was going. I still see a lot of similarities.
The difference is Trump handled it personally, while Clinton's campaign handle it and not Hilary herself.
Doesn't this open up all kinds of revelations during discovery because he has to prove his accusations?
I'm not sure he thought this through but I don't think he has the best attorneys or takes any advice.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
www.cluthelee.com
www.cluthe.com
I'm not too familiar with how multi-million dollar companies work. But I do know they have copies of checks signed by Trump. Whether it was trump signing for his own personal account or for his business account, I didn't think it would make a difference in this case. That's why I used that interchangeably. He was still ultimately the person responsible for the finances if he's signing the checks.
Of course Hilary and the DNC are not going to admit any fault. But it seems pretty clear. They paid an attorney who hired a group to create the dossier. They claimed it as "legal consultation" and didn't pay Steele directly, they paid him through their attorneys. Its pretty clear what they did and why. But no one should be surprised they denied it, especially since the fines are so low and would cost more to fight it. Makes an easy excuse to say I'll just pay but we didn't do anything wrong.
If you still think this is the same, and if its "no big deal" or "why one and not the other," POOTWH was offered the opportunity to clear everything up before the Grand Jury. Had he done so, maybe he wouldn't have been indicted?
And I'll add, POOTWH's shit for brains should have paid for it out of his personal expenses and when exposed, admitted it. If he had done so, we wouldn't be discussing it and that POS wouldn't be indicted for 34 counts of falsifying NYS business records.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I'd also assume that once an indictment is issued and the potential punishment for the offense(s) charged, if found guilty, are identified that the DOJ and Bureau of Prisons would identify how they'll handle it. All of this said, POOTWH will probably die before he sees the inside of a prison or is placed under home confinement as it drags out the appeals process. Jared Dear Boy has $2B to ensure that.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I think the trial would favor the party with the best evidence. If the phone and email records show minimal contact with stormy before the genital tape was released and alot in the week afterwards (as Cohen claims) and if there is evidence the offer was $20k before, then shot up to $130k after, the prosecution has a good case.
One would think there is solid evidence here, given that the defendant is a former President.
find out soon enough since Bragg has his fedral returns as well I suspect access to NYS returns ....
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 '14
The most obvious starting point here is Manhattan, where District Attorney Alvin Bragg already obtained an indictment against Trump on 34 felony charges of falsifying business records. Those charges were felonies because the alleged falsification was in service to another crime, possibly violations of state or federal election law centered on Trump’s efforts to bury a story of an alleged affair before the 2016 election. (The Federal Election Commission declined to recommend federal charges against Trump, splitting a 2-2 decision on partisan lines. Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to such charges in 2018.)
What you reject when you assert Trump’s complete innocence (msn.com)
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
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 '14
I would guess, of it were to come down to some sort of sentence, it would be house arrest or something like that.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Is it tax fraud if the business buys your car and you don't report it as income?
Feds.... that liability seems to grow....
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 '14
If the business buys the vehicle and you report your personal use and it gets added to your W-2 each year then you are good to go. Willful noncompliance is what gets people in trouble.
It's easy to let some things slip through. If you own a restaurant will anyone really notice if you eat for free or purchase groceries through the business and take them home? Probably not. But if a normal restaurant has a gross profit of 70% and your restaurant is showing 50% that clearly indicates you are doing something fraudulent. Or you are a ridiculously shitty businessman.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana