So, if it was wrong to classify the payment as a legal expense, then how should it have been classified?

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

It didn't have to, there just has to be intent

^^ the lawfare piece looks like it explains this

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

People who testified to FEC violations are Michael Cohen and David Pecker of AMI, but Trump was not allowed to have Bradley Smith talk about it.
Biggest appeal issue is FEC violations are not in the grand jury indictment.

Just stop. You are hopelessly dense. You do not understand anything about the law or the charges.

Just for clarity, because most of us don't understand a lot about the law or the charges--but the charges are falsifying business records. Cohen paid Stormy $130k. Trump paid him $420k. Of that, $290k would be compensation to Cohen for work done (NEC 1099? Misc 1099?). But the $130k was included in the books as legal expenses? Which is falsification?

If that's the case, then FEC would not be needed, right? But it is important to prove that nothing about this related to business expenses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

Good grief.
Somehow..... he has allowed the prosecution to do exactly what you said.
In the case of Smith - he knows FEC regulations and laws. He is far more relevant a witness than David Pecker.
And, my gosh... if you have been following this case and the bias by this judge... there are grounds for appeal nearly every day.

This is a new york case, not a federal case. There is no FEC jurisdiction here.

Then why are they trying to endorce federal election law?

They want SCOTUS to jump in.

The prosecutors have stated that their primary crime they are alleging as the 'another crime' is NY law promot[ing] or prevent[ing] the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.

What are the unlawful means, and how does this crime cause that crime?
Falsification of business records had no impact on the election, as they were booked after the election, as were any FEC reports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

People who testified to FEC violations are Michael Cohen and David Pecker of AMI, but Trump was not allowed to have Bradley Smith talk about it.
Biggest appeal issue is FEC violations are not in the grand jury indictment.

Just stop. You are hopelessly dense. You do not understand anything about the law or the charges.

Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

Good grief.
Somehow..... he has allowed the prosecution to do exactly what you said.
In the case of Smith - he knows FEC regulations and laws. He is far more relevant a witness than David Pecker.
And, my gosh... if you have been following this case and the bias by this judge... there are grounds for appeal nearly every day.

This is a new york case, not a federal case. There is no FEC jurisdiction here.

Then why are they trying to endorce federal election law?

Anonymous wrote:How is Trump's team spinning the payment to Stormy if they are also denying any sexual encounter took place? Why would Trump have paid her off if she hadn't gotten him off? They can't deny she was paid - why in the world would she be getting that check if nothing had happened?

They paid off a doorman, that National Enquirer eventually concluded was a false story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:this didn't work in the E Jean Carroll case either

Disgusting. I admire Daniels. She made her choice and has no apologies. A lot of lawyers need to make apologies for their chosen profession.

I think it's pretty weird that they try to shame her for what she has done for a living when it was apparently good enough for her employer to sponsor a hole at a celebrity golf tournament and have their porn actresses meet and greet the men playing in the tournament.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's attorneys should have stipulated the meeting took place. Having Daniels recount the events today do not help Trump at all.

They’re not stipulating to anything, which is weird because it makes the trial so much longer and Trump is complaining constantly about it. Last week someone had to come in from CSPAN to verify that a video of Trump was actually a video of Trump.

This is how you know Trump is controlling the defense, and not the attorneys.

He’s a genius, obviously. And they’re likely going to commit a felony allegedly while acting in the defense of their client so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump's attorneys should have stipulated the meeting took place. Having Daniels recount the events today do not help Trump at all.

They’re not stipulating to anything, which is weird because it makes the trial so much longer and Trump is complaining constantly about it. Last week someone had to come in from CSPAN to verify that a video of Trump was actually a video of Trump.

This is how you know Trump is controlling the defense, and not the attorneys.

Anonymous wrote:Trump's attorneys should have stipulated the meeting took place. Having Daniels recount the events today do not help Trump at all.

They’re not stipulating to anything, which is weird because it makes the trial so much longer and Trump is complaining constantly about it. Last week someone had to come in from CSPAN to verify that a video of Trump was actually a video of Trump.

How is Trump's team spinning the payment to Stormy if they are also denying any sexual encounter took place? Why would Trump have paid her off if she hadn't gotten him off? They can't deny she was paid - why in the world would she be getting that check if nothing had happened?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the head of the FEC testify that this case didn't warrant even a fine? Oh yeah... Judge didn't allow this witness to testify - rigged!

Yeah, Each day brings mounting appeal issues. Judge doesn't care. His goal is to get a conviction prior to the election. An appeal overturning this circus would happen AFTER the election.
As I heard someone say - the bucket is now overflowing with grounds for appeal.

Ah yes, he will definitely win an appeal by arguing that the judge should have allowed a witness to testify even though he has no personal knowledge of any of the facts in the case.

People who testified to FEC violations are Michael Cohen and David Pecker of AMI, but Trump was not allowed to have Bradley Smith talk about it.
Biggest appeal issue is FEC violations are not in the grand jury indictment.

Just stop. You are hopelessly dense. You do not understand anything about the law or the charges.