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.
It didn't help, but... If Comey hadn't fucked up like that, we could have avoided that Trump years. It's one thing when a nominee does it to themselves, but another when someone else's decision does it to them.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I can't understand any argument that he has subpoena power on Bragg. He couldn't enforce one on a executive member, so what's the argument that he can on an member of the executive branch at the state level? Makes no sense.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
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
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall after a very restful summer exploring the Great Canadian Wilderness and beaches, listening to Pearl Jam, Headstones, Watchmen, Queens of the Stone Age, and many others.
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
“Crying.” Quick, send money so POOTWH can send Kleenex and handkerchiefs to all the employees of the courthouse. And if you act now and make a minimum $100 donation, POOTWH will include a POOTWH Comfort Doll. Quick, donate now! Operators are standing by!
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
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?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
And that may be true. I'm just bringing up the potential issues I see with the current indictments and people don't seem to care, as long as Trump was arrested, that's all that matters. You know what the defense is going to be. Its going to be Trump paid for the hush money, therefore its not a donation and no campaign laws were broken. Then they're going to point to the Edwards case, and explain personal hush money has been okay. The prosecution will claim it was different because its political. The defense is going to point to the fact they silenced her in 2011, years before he even ran. And they only paid out money when she was shopping her story around. Understanding the prosecution has the burden of proof, not Trump, I don't know how to disprove that. Tehy will admit to mislabeling funds. When Hilary mislabeled campaign funds as attorney fees that paid for the dossier, she was fined $8,000. So that's what they will compare this to.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
And that may be true. I'm just bringing up the potential issues I see with the current indictments and people don't seem to care, as long as Trump was arrested, that's all that matters. You know what the defense is going to be. Its going to be Trump paid for the hush money, therefore its not a donation and no campaign laws were broken. Then they're going to point to the Edwards case, and explain personal hush money has been okay. The prosecution will claim it was different because its political. The defense is going to point to the fact they silenced her in 2011, years before he even ran. And they only paid out money when she was shopping her story around. Understanding the prosecution has the burden of proof, not Trump, I don't know how to disprove that.
It's not that people don't care, mace. People just disagree with your assessment.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
Link, please?
I think I posted a different link yesterday, but this was the first one. I didn't think Stormy trying to sell her story was in debate? I thought it was common knowledge she took it to the National Enquirer, who then warned trump. https://www.axios.com/2023/03/18/trump-stormy-daniels-payment-probe
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
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?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
Link, please?
I think I posted a different link yesterday, but this was the first one. I didn't think Stormy trying to sell her story was in debate? I thought it was common knowledge she took it to the National Enquirer, who then warned trump. https://www.axios.com/2023/03/18/trump-stormy-daniels-payment-probe
You claimed “versions,” like there’s multiple sources of information all saying the same thing. You’ve linked to one article or source. Why don’t you cut and paste the direct source of your information that backs your claim? You didn’t post a link yesterday, unless I missed it, and your link here is just a timeline of events. It doesn’t help your speculation.
Regardless, it’s the manner by which POOTWH knew and kept his business records in NYS. Not that he paid “hush money.” The absence of a retainer makes the claim of “legal fees” as a “business expense”, even “hush money” problematic. You want to bet POOTWH also claimed those “business expenses” as tax deductions? Of which he’s not currently being charged?
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
read it again, mick.
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall after a very restful summer exploring the Great Canadian Wilderness and beaches, listening to Pearl Jam, Headstones, Watchmen, Queens of the Stone Age, and many others.
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
Was Hillary charged in NYS court with violations of NYS law?
Was John Edwards charged in NYS court with violations of NYS law?
Those, I believe, were FEC violations and charged in federal courts. No bearing other than being similar. And to Micky’s point, was Cohen falsely accused and convicted for an illegal campaign contribution, then? To which he was “directed” to do so knowingly by “subject 1?” Directed by his client in the absence of a retainer?
I look forward to reading the court transcripts and hearing the jury’s verdict. Think copping a plea is in the future?
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
Was Hillary charged in NYS court with violations of NYS law?
Was John Edwards charged in NYS court with violations of NYS law?
Those, I believe, were FEC violations and charged in federal courts. No bearing other than being similar. And to Micky’s point, was Cohen falsely accused and convicted for an illegal campaign contribution, then? To which he was “directed” to do so knowingly by “subject 1?” Directed by his client in the absence of a retainer?
I look forward to reading the court transcripts and hearing the jury’s verdict. Think copping a plea is in the future?
For Trump to be facing felony charges the prosecution has to prove 2 things. This was for political gain and was a political contribution. The mislabeling of funds is minor in comparison, usually just a fine. What he is being charged with is falsifying those records with intent to cover up another crime. I haven't seen a real response why I am wrong. Which is why it is difficult to think many here are taking it seriously, they just want to see him locked up. If I am incorrect, then please explain. It matters where the money came from because if it came from trump, then there is no campaign donation violation, and therefore no coverup of an illegal donation. If it was to protect him and his family, then it isn't a campaign matter either, just like In the case with Edwards. So how does the state prove this was a donation when Trump reimbursed Cohen? How do you prove it was for political gain when they had been threatening her to keep silent for 5 years? the burden of proof is on the state, not on trump to prove his innocence. Without proving those things, its a record keeping infraction, similar to what Hilary was fined $8000 for when she disguised the dossier financing payments as legal fees. One they are probably all aware of and happy to pay a fine to keep the real spending hidden.
I had only read the indictment. I hadn't read the Statement of Facts that followed.
That did answer most of the questions I had. And it sounds like he does lay out what the bigger crime was. He says multiple times the payment itself was illegal. Seems odd because I've heard 100 times this week that there was no mention of the other crime and that he doesn't have to, but he says it "Lawyer A made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan. This payment was illegal, and Lawyer A has since pleaded guilty to making an illegal campaign contribution."
But I've also heard many times that the payment was fine, it was how it was recorded was wrong. I don't know, I guess we'll see in the coming months what it is.
If hush money payment is illegal during a campaign, then I will admit my previous posts are wrong. But if not, and the only illegal part is how they recorded it, then that still stands there is no bigger crime to make this into a felony.
My guess is that you’re hearing people say the payment was fine is because Cohen didn’t go to trial about it, he pleaded guilty instead, so using mental gymnastics, someone could say this is “okay”.
I think with Cohen the argument was since he paid for it initially (and Trump paid him back with monthly installments disguised as legal fees) it should have been considered a donation, and was above the legal limit for a donation. Paying for silence was fine, but coming from a third party like Cohen made it a donation. That was my understanding of it.
Doesn’t matter who made the payments . If the purpose was to keep the public from knowing the truth before the election, it’s a campaign contribution. I think it’s a good idea to get comfortable with this first before trying to process if there is a real crime here.
Also, Hal posted some very specific legal details here at 1.55pm - as I mentioned earlier trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place if any of his entities took a tax deduction for this, if he tries to claim he bribed stormy for marital reasons. So it’s either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution, so it seems, but that’s why we have juries.
It actually does matter who made the payments. If Cohen made the payments, it's considered a donation and therefore subject to the donation limits. If it was Trump donating to his own campaign, he is not. One is illegal, the other is totally fine. Still needs to be reported correctly, but one has an underlying crime and the other does not.
I also mention the either or in my last post. I view it as like an ambidextrous pitcher in MLB facing a switch hitter. The pitcher has to declare which arm he is throwing with first and the batter gets to decide which side of the plate to bat from. I would think the prosecution is has to declare what and how they are charging and then allow the defense to do their thing. Not charge him with one thing then if that doesn't work charge him with tax fraud instead.
I'm not arguing Trump is innocent by any means. The details of this are fascinating to me. It's like a web where one thing hinges on another. I'm guessing they will argue the payment was illegal because it was from an illegal donation. But was it a donation if it was reimbursed? I appreciate a lot of the responses so far.
Let go of who made the payments and their purpose. I'm not up on NY law but I would imagine, like in any state, there are a shit ton of laws that govern registered businesses and trusts, and how you "account" for your business/trust dealings. That is the violation of law. 34 times, as listed, with documentary evidence and soon to be testimony. It seems to me Weasleberg sang like a canary on bird treats. Now, in addition, Bragg about bringing POOTWH down doesn't have to list tax fraud as a crime now. He's prosecuting POOTWH for 34 misdemeanor counts of falsification of business records in the furtherance of another crime, which is what makes it a felony. What do you suppose will happen when the documentary evidence and testimony proves this scheme took place? Do you think there may be witnesses, maybe from Mazars or Weasleberg himself, of whether these "business expenses" were claimed as tax deductions? For "legal fees" with no retainer? Opps, opens another door for a future tax evasion prosecution, me thinks. Its not being charged now and is being kept separate because even if it beats this rap, it can't claim double jeopardy for the tax evasion or fraudulent tax avoidance. Follow the money.
As a side note, anyone want to guess as to the number of pages of documents Bragg about bringing POOTWH down will have to review to make the tax case? Anyone have a sense of the documents produced when you have 500 + shell companies? Anyone know who the POOTWH Organization's Accounts Payable Supervisor is?
This is all the same shit POOTWH's daddy pulled that the NYT exposed but the statute of limitations had run out. Falsification of invoices/business records to avoid paying taxes or to be able to write them off. Mobsters don't fall far from the tree and it used to be, its who you know and not what you know. 1970s and 80s NYC City Hall was a much different place than 2020 NYC City Hall. Sucker.
Who paid Stormy seems like a key detail though and my prediction on what the main defense is going to be. From the looks of it, seems like they are arguing the underlining crime that turns this from a misdemeanor into a felony is the campaign donation laws because Cohen paid her first, and therefore should have been a campaign contribution which have limits.
Under certain circumstances, hush money payments are tax write offs. So they’re going to argue no tax fraud on trump too. My guess is the entire defense is going to rely on convincing the Jury or judge that Trump paid I think It’s worth the 3 or 4 comments I made on it.
How so? Under what circumstances?
According to IRC Section 162, a payment can be considered deductible if it is an ordinary and necessary expense paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. This may include legal settlements paid to protect the reputation of the business. However, the payment must not violate public policy or law. https://www.irstaxapp.com/hush-money-taxation/
Saw something similar on Forbes too. One of the only exceptions is hush money for sexual harassment, but I don't think she was claiming that. I'm not saying I agree with it. But if he's faced with tax fraud you don't think his lawyers would put up a big fight that his image is important to his businesses and this was a business expense? I'm sure they will argue that and a dozen other angles I would never even think of.
So for ten years he didn’t care about his public image hurting his business? Stormy could have told anyone at any time, especially for the eighteen months before the bribe and after he was a candidate. Nor did trump care the five years after he became the country’s chief Kenyan advocate. After he attacked Obama then, he was surely a prime target.
But nothing until the election was imminent? Keep trying.
I've heard this several times. But Stormy wasn't interested in selling it for 10 years. I have zero experience with paying hush money, but I'm assuming you don't go around offering it to people who have no desire in selling their stories about you. Only when he became a candidate did Stormy get offers, and only then did it require payments to buy her silence. The whole timing says very little to me. That's when she almost broke her silence, not when Trump decided it was important.
Has she said that? To me it really doesn’t matter when she was interested in selling the story, she could have spoke at any time for free , especially after June 2015 and before October 2016, a long period of time that trump was a candidate ahead in the gop polls, and trump didn’t care about bribing her until he realized he could actually win the race against Hilary . And after access Hollywood, it became imperative to trump not to have a second sex scandal right before Election Day.That’s the critical timing here, good luck with the jury showing them that tape, and they likely have phone records that night that will tie him into the beginnings of the stormy bribe, the same day the access Hollywood tape was made public.
May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.
A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."
So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?
cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely
Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story. So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.
So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying
I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different. I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict. Who knows what we don't know though.
If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it.
The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story. I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.
AGAINST NY LAW.
It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
illegal or not shouldnt matter? wtf are you talking about. he broke the law surrounding an otherwise legal payment BUT FOR he paid to keep it quiet a few weeks before the election. FALSIFIED RECORDS TO COVER UP THOSE THE REPAYMENT.
He isnt charged for the payment. as always with shit like this , its the cover up. what is so hard to understand about that? and its not just her, it is mcdougal and a payment to a doorman that was hidden the same way.
His agent in the matter went to prison for his part in this as well. sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
This is another example of what H2H asked for, the timing is what keeps getting brought up. He had been threatening her for 5 years to keep quiet, so this just didn't come out of thin air 2 weeks before the election. But that is when the National Enquirer got a hold of it. it was going on for 5 years before the election, not 2 weeks that a lot of people keep repeating. And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
I suggest you read this excellent summary from The Bulwark. It discusses the conspiracy between Pecker, Cohen and Trump that occurred a month before the election, mostly due to the Access Hollywood tape. The combination of that tape with the McDougal, door man and Daniels issue is what led to the crimes. FTR, the Bulwark is a conservative publication, although constructed of true "never Trump" conservatives.
I just don’t see why Bragg would of committed himself to bring charges without being sure a trial in the end would bring back a guilty verdict! He’s got too much to lose compared to Trumpolinni even with a guilty verdict won’t result in any jail time! The one putting his career on the line is Bragg not Trumpolinni
Comments
It didn't help, but... If Comey hadn't fucked up like that, we could have avoided that Trump years. It's one thing when a nominee does it to themselves, but another when someone else's decision does it to them.
the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.
And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
@mrussel1 , @Go Beavers , @tbergs, @mickeyrat, @brianlux, @PJ_Soul, @The Juggler, @Gern Blansten
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
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 editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence.
So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story.
I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.
Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?
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
Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?
The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.
And, quite honestly, I think this case will be on the back burner of most people's minds after the other indictments drop.
I'm just bringing up the potential issues I see with the current indictments and people don't seem to care, as long as Trump was arrested, that's all that matters.
You know what the defense is going to be. Its going to be Trump paid for the hush money, therefore its not a donation and no campaign laws were broken.
Then they're going to point to the Edwards case, and explain personal hush money has been okay. The prosecution will claim it was different because its political. The defense is going to point to the fact they silenced her in 2011, years before he even ran. And they only paid out money when she was shopping her story around.
Understanding the prosecution has the burden of proof, not Trump, I don't know how to disprove that.
Tehy will admit to mislabeling funds. When Hilary mislabeled campaign funds as attorney fees that paid for the dossier, she was fined $8,000. So that's what they will compare this to.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I didn't think Stormy trying to sell her story was in debate? I thought it was common knowledge she took it to the National Enquirer, who then warned trump.
https://www.axios.com/2023/03/18/trump-stormy-daniels-payment-probe
sso is your contention cohen is solely culpable in this? and further that Bragg is incompetent? being so expert on ny business law.....
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
Regardless, it’s the manner by which POOTWH knew and kept his business records in NYS. Not that he paid “hush money.” The absence of a retainer makes the claim of “legal fees” as a “business expense”, even “hush money” problematic. You want to bet POOTWH also claimed those “business expenses” as tax deductions? Of which he’s not currently being charged?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
In my absence, please refer to the following for any reasoned debate on any given matter (please note this list is not exhaustive):
@mrussel1 , @Go Beavers , @tbergs, @mickeyrat, @brianlux, @PJ_Soul, @The Juggler, @Gern Blansten
And, again, it is important because how do you prove it was for political gain when he's been threatening her for 5 years before the election?
He falsified records, no doubt about that. The back story behind it is the difference between an $8,000 fine or 34 felonies though.
Was John Edwards charged in NYS court with violations of NYS law?
Those, I believe, were FEC violations and charged in federal courts. No bearing other than being similar. And to Micky’s point, was Cohen falsely accused and convicted for an illegal campaign contribution, then? To which he was “directed” to do so knowingly by “subject 1?” Directed by his client in the absence of a retainer?
I look forward to reading the court transcripts and hearing the jury’s verdict. Think copping a plea is in the future?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I haven't seen a real response why I am wrong. Which is why it is difficult to think many here are taking it seriously, they just want to see him locked up. If I am incorrect, then please explain.
It matters where the money came from because if it came from trump, then there is no campaign donation violation, and therefore no coverup of an illegal donation.
If it was to protect him and his family, then it isn't a campaign matter either, just like In the case with Edwards.
So how does the state prove this was a donation when Trump reimbursed Cohen? How do you prove it was for political gain when they had been threatening her to keep silent for 5 years?
the burden of proof is on the state, not on trump to prove his innocence.
Without proving those things, its a record keeping infraction, similar to what Hilary was fined $8000 for when she disguised the dossier financing payments as legal fees. One they are probably all aware of and happy to pay a fine to keep the real spending hidden.
https://www.thebulwark.com/sorry-doubters-but-bragg-was-right-to-indict-trump/