mfc2006 said:

ikiT said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Go Beavers said:

Merkin Baller said:

Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president? 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealed

I suggest folks read both documents.

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.

According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011: 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/

2011

May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.

A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."

So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?

cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely

Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story.
So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). 
I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.

So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying 

I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. 
Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. 
The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money
Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different.
I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict.
Who knows what we don't know though. 

If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable 

the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty  of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.

And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.

The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it. 

The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. 
So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story.
I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.

Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?

SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.

AGAINST NY LAW.

It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.

Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?

The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.

From who? Link, please?

many people are saying...

so, so many people...almost all the people. close, but not all the people...but everyone - so, so, so many people.

mace1229 said:

mfc2006 said:

ikiT said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Go Beavers said:

Merkin Baller said:

Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president? 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealed

I suggest folks read both documents.

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.

According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011: 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/

2011

May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.

A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."

So this speaks against everyone who is saying Trump didn't care until 2016, doesn't it?

cared enough in 2016 to actually pay and not just threaten to sue a tv network....... otherwise white house not likely

Well, whatever they did in 2011 was enough to keep her quiet for 5 years. It was only in 2016 that she reached out to editors again to try and sell her story. Trump got wind she was trying to sell her story.
So they bought her silence in 2011 with threats of a lawsuit. 5 years later when she decided to shop it around again they offered her an NDA (probably with threats of a lawsuit if she didn't accept). 
I don't know where this whole narrative where Trump is responsible for this timeline is coming from. If she didn't shop it around to try and make money, he wouldn't have bought her off.

So do you believe the state has no case? And he did the right thing? I’m just trying to comprehend what your saying 

I'm not saying he did the right thing. But, despite what Pelosi says, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Trump to prove his innocence. 
Their defense is likely going to be pointing at Edwards. He wasn't convicted in part because he claimed it was to protect his family and not help the campaign, despite the fact he was running for president too. 
The only counterargument to that I've see was the timing, that it happened just weeks before the election, so clearly it wasn't about the family at all. But that's when Stormy shopped er story around. She offered it to the National Inquirer, who in turn warned Trump what she was doing, and then he offered her hush money
Trump doesn't have to prove his innocence in that. I don't see how the state can prove it was different that Edwards.We can all believe its different, and I do too. It probably was politically motived with Edwards too. But believe and having the burden of proof are different.
I don't know if the state has a case or not. But based on the information I have right now, I don't see how they would get a guilty verdict.
Who knows what we don't know though. 

If the defense brings up edwards, the DA will bring up the serious illness his wife had, and to me at least, that will score with the jury, as trump does not have a comparable 

the angle in your comment is that Stormy is looking to sell. If I’m the DA I show the jury Team Trump email and phone records the days before access Hollywood and days after. That should tell us that trump was looking to buy. If there is a sizable increase in phone activity after the AH tape became public (as Cohen has stated) and nothing beforehand I’ll bet anyone some money trump is cooked with an impartial jury. Plenty  of men are sitting in jail now with less substantial evidence.

And regarding your comments about 2011, it could be damning in the eyes of the jury that he wasn’t willing to pay her a cent in 2011 but did fork over six figures two weeks before the election. And paid a second mistress as well. Also, both could be true, trump was concerned with his image AND he wanted to win the election by keeping his affairs private.

The versions I've read say that Stormy saw the Access Hollywood tape and thought she could now sell her story. She contacted her publisher/manager/whatever who contacted the National Enquirer in hopes to sell the story now that it is a hot topic with Trump. It wasn't worth much a year earlier, but now maybe she can get some bank with it. 

The editor of the NE contacted Trump to let him know Stormy was offering her story to sell. That's when Trump bought her silence. 
So yes, obviously there would be more phone calls and contact after the Access Hollywood video, because that is what prompted Stormy to push it around. Trump didn't offer to buy her out before because she wasn't trying to sell her story.
I keep hearing Trump waiting until weeks before the election to buy her out because the election was coming or the HA video. But the reality is that is when Stormy was trying to sell it.

Edwards cheating on his dying wife will score points for who? The prosecution or Trump?

SO FUCKING WHAT!!!! HE PAID. THEN COVERED UP THE PAYMENTS. WHILE SITTING IN THE OVAL CUTTING CHECKS.

AGAINST NY LAW.

It actually matters because I keep hearing it was only illegal because it was for political gain. And proof it was for political gain was because Trump waiting until a couple weeks before the election to buy her out.

Its just funny because there are some holes in this case. I've seen dozens of posts of people pointing to the timing or other issues and every time I point one out the response is so what?

The fact if it was illegal or not should matter. The whole argument that this is different that Edwards was the timing made it more political. So it does matter.

From who? Link, please?

many people are saying...

so, so many people...almost all the people. close, but not all the people...but everyone - so, so, so many people.

And that's why this place is pointless. You can make an obvious comment, like point out the fact one of the main arguments is that he did it for his campaign, but bring it up once and everyone acts like no one ever said it.

The Juggler said:

No matter what, it will always, ALWAYS, circle back to Hillary Fucking Clinton. Good god almighty. 

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

No matter what, it will always, ALWAYS, circle back to Hillary Fucking Clinton. Good god almighty. 

false

you shouldn't laugh or mock if you can't/won't answer the question. mace obviously isn't a "lock her up" nutcase. he had a LEGITIMATE question about the difference, which you couldn't/wouldn't answer. so you "lol". 

this isn't one of those cases of a magat throwing out hillary clinton because that's what they do. it was because the cases looked similar to the average joe just having a conversation. 

I never said he was a "magat" (your word). Republicans have used her as their bogeywoman for decades prior to maga even existed. I don't see any difference here. 

gimmesometruth27 said:

of all the things in human history that did not happen, this never happened the most.

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1645896637343039489?s=20

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Go Beavers said:

Merkin Baller said:

Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president? 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealed

I suggest folks read both documents.

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.

According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011: 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/

2011

May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.

A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."

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.  

https://www.thebulwark.com/sorry-doubters-but-bragg-was-right-to-indict-trump/

Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.

"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."

Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. 
My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. 
But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.

So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.

And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her? 

I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?

I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney. 

Hillary didn't pay anything.  Her campaign paid Perkins Coie who in turn hired Fusion GPS which in turn hired Richard Steele for oppo research.  So first off, Hillary wasn't the CEO of Fusion or Perkins for that matter.  Nor was she the CEO of her campaign.  They aren't structured like a business and are not corporations.  They likely recorded this as a campaign expense and that was perfectly legitimate as a campaign expense.  Why do you think her campaign was hiding it?

Unless you are speaking of something other than the Steele Dossier, your analogy doesn't fit here.  

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Go Beavers said:

Merkin Baller said:

Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president? 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealed

I suggest folks read both documents.

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.

According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011: 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/

2011

May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.

A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."

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.  

https://www.thebulwark.com/sorry-doubters-but-bragg-was-right-to-indict-trump/

Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.

"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."

Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. 
My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. 
But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.

So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.

And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her? 

I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?

I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney. 

Hillary didn't pay anything.  Her campaign paid Perkins Coie who in turn hired Fusion GPS which in turn hired Richard Steele for oppo research.  So first off, Hillary wasn't the CEO of Fusion or Perkins for that matter.  Nor was she the CEO of her campaign.  They aren't structured like a business and are not corporations.  They likely recorded this as a campaign expense and that was perfectly legitimate as a campaign expense.  Why do you think her campaign was hiding it?

Unless you are speaking of something other than the Steele Dossier, your analogy doesn't fit here.  

Hillary paid $8K and the DNC paid $134K. And the attorney, like Cohen, was found guilty or plead guilty to a crime. So, in that way, they are similar. The major difference, Clinton worked out an agreement, see above, and didn't falsify any business, or personal records for that matter, falsifying NYS business records in the process. And again, POOTWH is not charged with tax fraud. Yet. And further, much as I dislike the "take the 5th" its a fundamental right of the accused, just as not having to re-litigate or prove the underlying crime that the 34 misdemeanors allude to is for Bragg about taking POOTWH down, a crime that Cohen did time for.

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Go Beavers said:

Merkin Baller said:

Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president? 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealed

I suggest folks read both documents.

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.

According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011: 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/

2011

May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.

A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."

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.  

https://www.thebulwark.com/sorry-doubters-but-bragg-was-right-to-indict-trump/

Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.

"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."

Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. 
My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. 
But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.

So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.

And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her? 

I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?

I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney. 

Hillary didn't pay anything.  Her campaign paid Perkins Coie who in turn hired Fusion GPS which in turn hired Richard Steele for oppo research.  So first off, Hillary wasn't the CEO of Fusion or Perkins for that matter.  Nor was she the CEO of her campaign.  They aren't structured like a business and are not corporations.  They likely recorded this as a campaign expense and that was perfectly legitimate as a campaign expense.  Why do you think her campaign was hiding it?

Unless you are speaking of something other than the Steele Dossier, your analogy doesn't fit here.  

Hillary paid $8K and the DNC paid $134K. And the attorney, like Cohen, was found guilty or plead guilty to a crime. So, in that way, they are similar. The major difference, Clinton worked out an agreement, see above, and didn't falsify any business, or personal records for that matter, falsifying NYS business records in the process. And again, POOTWH is not charged with tax fraud. Yet. And further, much as I dislike the "take the 5th" its a fundamental right of the accused, just as not having to re-litigate or prove the underlying crime that the 34 misdemeanors allude to is for Bragg about taking POOTWH down, a crime that Cohen did time for.

You're saying Hillary personally paid the money from her own account or personal company, rather than the Hillary campaign, which is not a corp, or LLC?

Halifax2TheMax said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

mickeyrat said:

mace1229 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mace1229 said:

Go Beavers said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Go Beavers said:

Merkin Baller said:

Where can I go to review the evidence that convinced the 23 person grand jury to indict the former president? 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-york-trump-indictment-unsealed

I suggest folks read both documents.

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.

According to the timeline linked above by Mickey, she tried in 2011: 
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-stormy-daniels-indictment-investigation-timeline-manhattan-district-attorney/

2011

May: Daniels gives an interview to the magazine In Touch describing her encounters with Trump in exchange for $15,000. Two employees later tell CBS News that the interview never ran because Michael Cohen, Trump's attorney, threatened to sue when the publication asked Trump for comment. Daniels says she was never paid.

A few weeks later, Daniels says she is threatened by a man who approaches her in Las Vegas and tells her to "leave Trump alone" and "forget the story."

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.  

https://www.thebulwark.com/sorry-doubters-but-bragg-was-right-to-indict-trump/

Thanks for sharing that. I agree with most of this article, except for really just 1 paragraph.

"The argument that a New York state prosecution can’t use a violation of federal campaign law to enhance a misdemeanor to a felony doesn’t make much sense. The applicable statute just talks about concealing or assisting in the commission of a “crime.” No court has ever ruled that the broad word “crime” should be construed narrowly to mean only “a violation of New York State law,” and there’s no reason it should. Bragg is not trying to charge Trump with violation of federal election laws, just to show that Trump’s falsification of business records was intended to cover one up. And even in the unlikely event that a court might rule that a federal crime can’t be used to elevate a misdemeanor to a felony, the phony tax returns are violations of state law and should on their own be sufficient to earn Trump a criminal conviction, if the prosecutor makes his case effectively."

Not that I don't agree with the federal and state crime part. 
My whole point was what election laws were broken, and how do you prove that? My understanding were the election laws that were allegedly broken were from Cohen paying Stormy. His payments were considered donations because they helped the campaign and were larger than the legal limit. 
But Trump paid him back more than double, so is that still a donation? If I were an impartial juror, I'd probably say no.

So what about the tax fraud then? I see a couple ways out of this one. One being Trump just claims he's not responsible for how Cohen files his taxes and claims they never discussed it. Going to be hard to take the word of someone who got a great plea deal to prove that case.

And if you think that's a strong enough case, what do you feel about Hilary? She did the same thing at the same time. She paid an attorney to do some dirty work and recorded it as legal expenses for the purposes of hiding it during the campaign. If her attorney claimed it as income like Cohen did, how do you charge Trump and not her? 

I'm not trying to be a both sides right now. But if you want Trump prosecuted as a felon and not Hilary, and the tax fraud is your angle, how is this not biased? She got fined $8000 and trump got 34 felony charges for literally the exact same thing. She was even living in New York at the time too, right?

I'm not saying lock Hilary up. I'm just saying I don't think the tax fraud angle has much weight. If it does, she probably needs to be talking to her attorney. 

Hillary didn't pay anything.  Her campaign paid Perkins Coie who in turn hired Fusion GPS which in turn hired Richard Steele for oppo research.  So first off, Hillary wasn't the CEO of Fusion or Perkins for that matter.  Nor was she the CEO of her campaign.  They aren't structured like a business and are not corporations.  They likely recorded this as a campaign expense and that was perfectly legitimate as a campaign expense.  Why do you think her campaign was hiding it?

Unless you are speaking of something other than the Steele Dossier, your analogy doesn't fit here.  

Hillary paid $8K and the DNC paid $134K. And the attorney, like Cohen, was found guilty or plead guilty to a crime. So, in that way, they are similar. The major difference, Clinton worked out an agreement, see above, and didn't falsify any business, or personal records for that matter, falsifying NYS business records in the process. And again, POOTWH is not charged with tax fraud. Yet. And further, much as I dislike the "take the 5th" its a fundamental right of the accused, just as not having to re-litigate or prove the underlying crime that the 34 misdemeanors allude to is for Bragg about taking POOTWH down, a crime that Cohen did time for.

You're saying Hillary personally paid the money from her own account or personal company, rather than the Hillary campaign, which is not a corp, or LLC?

Yes, I'm saying that Hillary the candidate paid $8K to settle the FEC violation. Unless I'm wrong? Its in the Guardian article.

Oops, "Clinton campaign" paid $8K and the DNC paid $105K for a total of $113K to settle the FEC charges.