I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
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 had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
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?
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
According to what we read, it was In Touch that they threatened to sue, not Daniels.
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?
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
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.
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.
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 liberals
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
According to what we read, it was In Touch that they threatened to sue, not Daniels.
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?
I don't know, maybe he's a cheap skate? Maybe he figured the threats worked before, maybe they would work again? 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?
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.
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.
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.
I think so. Clinton's lead in the polls increased right after the tape came out (and after the first debate a few days later). So the tape did have an affect.
If you combine that with porn star coming out and talking about her affair all over the airwaves, it could have negated the gift that Jim Comey gave Trump a couple weeks later.
Of course nothing would and still won't phase his base but they don't matter. It is the people in the middle that matter most. And that race was incredibly close, so yeah, this is definitely something that could have swung it to Clinton.
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.
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.
Yea it’s tough to say. I just still can’t get over the “grab them” video not completely doing him in. I think that’s actually worse than the stormy stuff. That’s why I think it wouldn’t have mattered. But who knows honestly.
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.
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.
Yea it’s tough to say. I just still can’t get over the “grab them” video not completely doing him in. I think that’s actually worse than the stormy stuff. That’s why I think it wouldn’t have mattered. But who knows honestly.
it wasnt just fucking a porn actress. it was fucking a porn actress while wifey number 3 is at home recovering from birth with their newborn son.....
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
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.
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.
Yea it’s tough to say. I just still can’t get over the “grab them” video not completely doing him in. I think that’s actually worse than the stormy stuff. That’s why I think it wouldn’t have mattered. But who knows honestly.
it wasnt just fucking a porn actress. it was fucking a porn actress while wifey number 3 is at home recovering from birth with their newborn son.....
I understand but still don’t think it would have cost him the election. Which is ridiculous to even think. Just my opinion.
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.
I don't know, but Trump's campaign must have thought so if they decided to pay her off instead of just sending goons again.
Does anyone think he gets elected if Comey doesn't announce the Clinton investigation?
I agree about the Access Hollywood tape... I'm still baffled at how many people were unphased / dug in even more for him after that... Women especially.
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.
I don't know, but Trump's campaign must have thought so if they decided to pay her off instead of just sending goons again.
Does anyone think he gets elected if Comey doesn't announce the Clinton investigation?
I agree about the Access Hollywood tape... I'm still baffled at how many people were unphased / dug in even more for him after that... Women especially.
This is something I just will never understand and what makes me think he was invincible at that point in time.
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.
Does anyone think he gets elected if Comey doesn't announce the Clinton investigation?
No. That clearly swung it to Trump. That's why a second story like Stormy coming on the heels of the Access Hollywood tape could have made a difference in limiting the Comey effect.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
According to what we read, it was In Touch that they threatened to sue, not Daniels.
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?
I don't know, maybe he's a cheap skate? Maybe he figured the threats worked before, maybe they would work again? 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?
You think he paid her because he's a nice guy and keeps his word? No, he paid her because he was advised to and talked into keeping his end of the agreement. Why would he enter into the agreement pre election, something he didn't do in 2011, then express a desire to renege post election? That's no small detail.
We know for a fact he's a cheap skate... so with that established, why not send the goons in 2016 just like 2011? What was different in 2016 than 2011 besides the fact that he had an election to win?
Ignoring the timing of everything is no different than ignoring any other detail in this case.
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.
I don't know, but Trump's campaign must have thought so if they decided to pay her off instead of just sending goons again.
Does anyone think he gets elected if Comey doesn't announce the Clinton investigation?
I agree about the Access Hollywood tape... I'm still baffled at how many people were unphased / dug in even more for him after that... Women especially.
This is something I just will never understand and what makes me think he was invincible at that point in time.
I don't think he wins if Comey doesn't announce the investigation.
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.
I don't know, but Trump's campaign must have thought so if they decided to pay her off instead of just sending goons again.
Does anyone think he gets elected if Comey doesn't announce the Clinton investigation?
I agree about the Access Hollywood tape... I'm still baffled at how many people were unphased / dug in even more for him after that... Women especially.
This is something I just will never understand and what makes me think he was invincible at that point in time.
I don't think he wins if Comey doesn't announce the investigation.
everyone is forgetting he did not win the popular vote either time. lost by nearly 3 million votes in 2016. he won a few states by a narrow margin and that is how he won.
trump is not a serious person. he did not even submit his disclosures by the deadline this time. i just saw that this morning.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I look forward to POOTWH taking the stand and admitting that he paid Stormy off because he didn’t fuck her and she was telling mean stories about him. That’ll be worth the price of admission. Pssssst, he still denies to this day the “alleged” affair.
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.
I don't know, but Trump's campaign must have thought so if they decided to pay her off instead of just sending goons again.
Does anyone think he gets elected if Comey doesn't announce the Clinton investigation?
I agree about the Access Hollywood tape... I'm still baffled at how many people were unphased / dug in even more for him after that... Women especially.
This is something I just will never understand and what makes me think he was invincible at that point in time.
It was “locker room talk”.
Name the offense, I’ll give the republican defense.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,226
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.
At one point, 45 said "I could go out on the street and shoot somebody dead and you would still vote for me." He was right- his fans are that rabidly devoted. The Daniels story would not have dented his election results in the slightest.
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.
At one point, 45 said "I could go out on the street and shoot somebody dead and you would still vote for me." He was right- his fans are that rabidly devoted. The Daniels story would not have dented his election results in the slightest.
Fuckstick captured the votes in 2020 from just 23% of the population as a whole. and just 19% of in 2016....
27,000 votes in a few counties across 3 states Wi, Mi and Pa, put fuckstick in.
would like to dive in and see the totals for those same counties and states between the 2 cycles.
gact is I'd much prefer to see much better participation across all beliefs on voting, informed voting. might npt always like the results, but that would show where we really are as a nation, no? somewhere in the 85 to 95% range?
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
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.
At one point, 45 said "I could go out on the street and shoot somebody dead and you would still vote for me." He was right- his fans are that rabidly devoted. The Daniels story would not have dented his election results in the slightest.
Fuckstick captured the votes in 2020 from just 23% of the population as a whole. and just 19% of in 2016....
27,000 votes in a few counties across 3 states Wi, Mi and Pa, put fuckstick in.
would like to dive in and see the totals for those same counties and states between the 2 cycles.
gact is I'd much prefer to see much better participation across all beliefs on voting, informed voting. might npt always like the results, but that would show where we really are as a nation, no? somewhere in the 85 to 95% range?
Sad to recall that if more Dems had shown up to vote in the 2020 election instead of just assuming they didn't need to because Hillary Clinton (they argued) "had it in the bag" we not need to be having this discussion.
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.
At one point, 45 said "I could go out on the street and shoot somebody dead and you would still vote for me." He was right- his fans are that rabidly devoted. The Daniels story would not have dented his election results in the slightest.
Fuckstick captured the votes in 2020 from just 23% of the population as a whole. and just 19% of in 2016....
27,000 votes in a few counties across 3 states Wi, Mi and Pa, put fuckstick in.
would like to dive in and see the totals for those same counties and states between the 2 cycles.
gact is I'd much prefer to see much better participation across all beliefs on voting, informed voting. might npt always like the results, but that would show where we really are as a nation, no? somewhere in the 85 to 95% range?
Sad to recall that if more Dems had shown up to vote in the 2020 election instead of just assuming they didn't need to because Hillary Clinton (they argued) "had it in the bag" we not need to be having this discussion.
As soon as Comey did what he did I got really worried. Clinton would have won if Comey hadn't done it. I'm sure he regrets it horribly.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
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.
At one point, 45 said "I could go out on the street and shoot somebody dead and you would still vote for me." He was right- his fans are that rabidly devoted. The Daniels story would not have dented his election results in the slightest.
Fuckstick captured the votes in 2020 from just 23% of the population as a whole. and just 19% of in 2016....
27,000 votes in a few counties across 3 states Wi, Mi and Pa, put fuckstick in.
would like to dive in and see the totals for those same counties and states between the 2 cycles.
gact is I'd much prefer to see much better participation across all beliefs on voting, informed voting. might npt always like the results, but that would show where we really are as a nation, no? somewhere in the 85 to 95% range?
Sad to recall that if more Dems had shown up to vote in the 2020 election instead of just assuming they didn't need to because Hillary Clinton (they argued) "had it in the bag" we not need to be having this discussion.
As soon as Comey did what he did I got really worried. Clinton would have won if Comey hadn't done it. I'm sure he regrets it horribly.
it didnt help she took certain voters and their votes for granted too.
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
Comments
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
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
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?
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?
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.
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?
If you combine that with porn star coming out and talking about her affair all over the airwaves, it could have negated the gift that Jim Comey gave Trump a couple weeks later.
Of course nothing would and still won't phase his base but they don't matter. It is the people in the middle that matter most. And that race was incredibly close, so yeah, this is definitely something that could have swung it to Clinton.
it wasnt just fucking a porn actress. it was fucking a porn actress while wifey number 3 is at home recovering from birth with their newborn son.....
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 don't know, but Trump's campaign must have thought so if they decided to pay her off instead of just sending goons again.
Does anyone think he gets elected if Comey doesn't announce the Clinton investigation?
I agree about the Access Hollywood tape... I'm still baffled at how many people were unphased / dug in even more for him after that... Women especially.
You think he paid her because he's a nice guy and keeps his word? No, he paid her because he was advised to and talked into keeping his end of the agreement. Why would he enter into the agreement pre election, something he didn't do in 2011, then express a desire to renege post election? That's no small detail.
We know for a fact he's a cheap skate... so with that established, why not send the goons in 2016 just like 2011? What was different in 2016 than 2011 besides the fact that he had an election to win?
Ignoring the timing of everything is no different than ignoring any other detail in this case.
trump is not a serious person. he did not even submit his disclosures by the deadline this time. i just saw that this morning.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
At one point, 45 said "I could go out on the street and shoot somebody dead and you would still vote for me." He was right- his fans are that rabidly devoted. The Daniels story would not have dented his election results in the slightest.
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 Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
Sad to recall that if more Dems had shown up to vote in the 2020 election instead of just assuming they didn't need to because Hillary Clinton (they argued) "had it in the bag" we not need to be having this discussion.
As soon as Comey did what he did I got really worried. Clinton would have won if Comey hadn't done it. I'm sure he regrets it horribly.
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