Anonymous
05/10/2024 15:44
Subject: Indictment Monday?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The reason it is a felony is because it was done to cover up another crime. What was the other crime?
New York Election Law § 17-152
Thank you. What was the “unlawful means”?
The only plausible 'unlawful means' is a campaign finance violation. Again they are trying to enforce federal election law.
And there is no violation. If Trump had booked a payment as a campaign finance expense, that could be argued is a violation of using campaign funds for personal expenses.
Anonymous
05/10/2024 15:27
Subject: Indictment Monday?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Trump paid $260k to reimburse Cohen for the $130k payment to Daniels because laundering it as legal fees rather than as a reimbursement made it taxable income to Cohen so they doubled it to cover his federal, state, and local taxes. They did the same to reimburse Cohen for paying $50k for “tech services” that for some reason they did not want reported honestly. That got it to $360k then they tacked on a 60k bonus for Cohen. That’s how Trump paid $420k to reimburse $180k that he did not want to be reported correctly.
Yet you have none of this in writing. It's all supposition and hearsay.
You haven’t been paying attention. It’s all itemized in a note accompanying the instructions to pay Cohen $35k per month for12 months. Triumph tweeted that it was reimbursement for paying for an NDA. It’s all documented.
Anonymous
05/10/2024 15:17
Subject: Indictment Monday?
Anonymous wrote:Trump paid $260k to reimburse Cohen for the $130k payment to Daniels because laundering it as legal fees rather than as a reimbursement made it taxable income to Cohen so they doubled it to cover his federal, state, and local taxes. They did the same to reimburse Cohen for paying $50k for “tech services” that for some reason they did not want reported honestly. That got it to $360k then they tacked on a 60k bonus for Cohen. That’s how Trump paid $420k to reimburse $180k that he did not want to be reported correctly.
Yet you have none of this in writing. It's all supposition and hearsay.
Anonymous
05/10/2024 15:00
Subject: Indictment Monday?
The prosection is likely to end next week and the BIGLY question is who will be witnesses for the defense? There is no one to dispute the prosecutions case!
Anonymous
05/10/2024 11:23
Subject: Indictment Monday?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The reason it is a felony is because it was done to cover up another crime. What was the other crime?
New York Election Law § 17-152
Thank you. What was the “unlawful means”?
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-must-prosecutors-prove-in-trump-s-ny-trial
Anonymous
05/10/2024 11:05
Subject: Indictment Monday?
Trump paid $260k to reimburse Cohen for the $130k payment to Daniels because laundering it as legal fees rather than as a reimbursement made it taxable income to Cohen so they doubled it to cover his federal, state, and local taxes. They did the same to reimburse Cohen for paying $50k for “tech services” that for some reason they did not want reported honestly. That got it to $360k then they tacked on a 60k bonus for Cohen. That’s how Trump paid $420k to reimburse $180k that he did not want to be reported correctly.
Anonymous
05/10/2024 10:26
Subject: Indictment Monday?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The reason it is a felony is because it was done to cover up another crime. What was the other crime?
New York Election Law § 17-152
Thank you. What was the “unlawful means”?
Anonymous
Anonymous
05/10/2024 09:51
Subject: Indictment Monday?
Anonymous wrote:The reason it is a felony is because it was done to cover up another crime. What was the other crime?
New York Election Law § 17-152
Anonymous
05/10/2024 09:41
Subject: Indictment Monday?
The reason it is a felony is because it was done to cover up another crime. What was the other crime?
Anonymous
05/10/2024 09:38
Subject: Indictment Monday?
Anonymous wrote: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.
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,
Again, he’s not being prosecuted for any federal crime. The indictment lists all the actual charges to the extent required by NY law. There is no requirement in NY law to specify the enhancement in the indictment.
Also the Grand Jury clause has not been incorporated against the states so it’s not at all relevant to a state prosecution.
You are talking to rocks who have no capacity for thought!
Anonymous
05/10/2024 09:36
Subject: Indictment Monday?
Anonymous wrote: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.
Susan necheles had a already refused to sign off on something the defense presented. Todd Blanche was a fool to give up everything to defend trump.
Anonymous
05/10/2024 09:29
Subject: Indictment Monday?
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.
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,
Again, he’s not being prosecuted for any federal crime. The indictment lists all the actual charges to the extent required by NY law. There is no requirement in NY law to specify the enhancement in the indictment.
Also the Grand Jury clause has not been incorporated against the states so it’s not at all relevant to a state prosecution.
Anonymous
05/10/2024 09:06
Subject: Indictment Monday?
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.
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.
The method of paying the "hush money" was illegal.
Had they done it legally, then it would have been fine.
They didn't and the story told this week was "covered up" right on the cusp of the "Access Hollywood" tapes being released. The GOP was already considering replacing Trump on the ticket at that late date. Had this story come out, it would have been devastating to the campaign.