Tommy Callahan Posted April 23 Posted April 23 Lol. This case is a joke. David ***** says Cohen provided him stories in 2016? Lmao. The msm reads like a dem mouthpiece.
The Frankish Reich Posted April 23 Posted April 23 14 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: You need to get out more. The key point of today’s testimony: Packer (I know I’m spelling it wrong to avoid the auto censor) said Cohen discussed with him what Packer could do to help “with the election.” In short, there’s the evidence that suppressing stories was for the purpose of furthering Trump’s campaign. To spin this as favorable testimony for Trump is just ridiculous. MSM 1, Alt-Nut coverage 0. 1 1 1
BillStime Posted April 23 Author Posted April 23 Why would P e c k e r pay for a story that wasn't true? And what did they have to hide?
Tommy Callahan Posted April 23 Posted April 23 Now they are bringing up bannon. This is going bad for the production. Like they are just tossing things at a wall to see if it sticks.
All_Pro_Bills Posted April 23 Posted April 23 (edited) 3 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Specific to the Manhattan case (the SOX issue is a different case) multiple people have been charged with felony falsification of business records in connection with an election campaign (what Trump is facing): Clarence Norman was convicted of felony falsification of business records in connection with campaign finance violations. Richard Brega was charged with, and plead guilty to, felony falsification of business records to conceal election law violations Richard Luthmann was charged with, and plead guilty to, felony falsification of business records in furtherance of election law violations. John Dote was charged with, and plead guilty to, felony falsification of business records in connection to election law violations. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting here. According to the stores: Norman was found guilty of soliciting illegal campaign contributions. Brega pleaded guilty to illegally donating to a political campaign by funneling cash through a family member. Luthmann was guilty of creating several Facebook pages in candidates’ names to try to influence political races making it appear those sites were legitimately associated with the candidates. Date plead guilty to embezzlement of party funds. Trump concealed a privately funded payment to another person in exchange for signing an NDA. No campaign or public funds were stolen or misappropriated as is the case in the above examples and as such none of them are equivalent to the Trump charges. What he did was fail to publicly disclose an NDA payment. Is there any legal requirement to do so? Election or not? And if there is a legal requirement to disclose an NDA then why have one in the first place? It renders the idea moot. As for falsifying business records, is the State of New York suggesting there is a proper way of accounting for and a correct GAAP sub-ledger account for secret NDA payments rather than how it was accounted for on his "business records"? Edited April 23 by All_Pro_Bills 2
The Frankish Reich Posted April 23 Posted April 23 8 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: As for falsifying business records, is the State of New York suggesting there is a proper way of accounting for and a correct GAAP sub-ledger account for secret NDA payments rather than how it was accounted for on his "business records"? Yes, that is exactly what the Stare of New York is suggesting. Indeed, charging. The payment was laundered through Michael Cohen as a legal fee when it was nothing of the sort. 1
The Frankish Reich Posted April 23 Posted April 23 10 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: What he did was fail to publicly disclose an NDA payment. Is there any legal requirement to do so? I don’t think there is. But there is a legal requirement to not knowingly file false financial statements. If Trump has written out a personal Donald John Trump check I suppose we wouldn’t be here. But he was afraid that such a payment would come to light and ruin his electoral chances so he buried it through a falsified legal expense, using Cohen as a conduit. Look, you can argue all you like about whether it was wise or prudent or political or whatever to bring this case. I don’t think it was a good idea to bring it for various reasons. But the case is pretty compelling on the facts (yep, this is what Trump and Cohen actually did, and there is evidence that they did it at least in large part to avoid a story coming out that could damage his campaign), and reasonably well thought out with respect to the legal theory. 2
ChiGoose Posted April 23 Posted April 23 32 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: Thanks for doing the heavy lifting here. According to the stores: Norman was found guilty of soliciting illegal campaign contributions. Brega pleaded guilty to illegally donating to a political campaign by funneling cash through a family member. Luthmann was guilty of creating several Facebook pages in candidates’ names to try to influence political races making it appear those sites were legitimately associated with the candidates. Date plead guilty to embezzlement of party funds. Trump concealed a privately funded payment to another person in exchange for signing an NDA. No campaign or public funds were stolen or misappropriated as is the case in the above examples and as such none of them are equivalent to the Trump charges. What he did was fail to publicly disclose an NDA payment. Is there any legal requirement to do so? Election or not? And if there is a legal requirement to disclose an NDA then why have one in the first place? It renders the idea moot. As for falsifying business records, is the State of New York suggesting there is a proper way of accounting for and a correct GAAP sub-ledger account for secret NDA payments rather than how it was accounted for on his "business records"? Each of those individuals was charged with falsification of records in connection to the election crimes. If Trump wanted to keep the stories out of the news, he could have just paid it out of the campaign fund. That would require disclosure to the FEC. He could have been honest about what the payments were for, but that information is available to the public so it could be discovered before the election, undermining the whole point of the payments. He could have paid out of the campaign and lied about what it was for. Think about the Clinton campaign and the Steele Dossier. They tried to cover it up by paying through an attorney. The FEC fined them for it, but that's just a slap on the wrist because the FEC is a toothless joke of an organization. Trump could have gone that route and probably gotten away with it the same way. But by having the funds come through a NY business, falsifying business records to keep it from going public as a way to benefit a political campaign, he opened himself up to criminal liability in NY. 1
Pokebball Posted April 23 Posted April 23 36 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I don’t think there is. But there is a legal requirement to not knowingly file false financial statements. If Trump has written out a personal Donald John Trump check I suppose we wouldn’t be here. But he was afraid that such a payment would come to light and ruin his electoral chances so he buried it through a falsified legal expense, using Cohen as a conduit. Look, you can argue all you like about whether it was wise or prudent or political or whatever to bring this case. I don’t think it was a good idea to bring it for various reasons. But the case is pretty compelling on the facts (yep, this is what Trump and Cohen actually did, and there is evidence that they did it at least in large part to avoid a story coming out that could damage his campaign), and reasonably well thought out with respect to the legal theory. It is very common for settlements be paid by one's attorney. This isn't odd or peculiar at all. It is also very common to classify settlements as legal expenses. 1
Pokebball Posted April 23 Posted April 23 11 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Trump is just shrinking, a beaten loser That is the goal of the lawfare, right?
Tommy Callahan Posted April 23 Posted April 23 They use lawfare to attempt to throw the election cause bidens support on the ground is nill.
All_Pro_Bills Posted April 23 Posted April 23 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: Yes, that is exactly what the Stare of New York is suggesting. Indeed, charging. The payment was laundered through Michael Cohen as a legal fee when it was nothing of the sort. OK. but fair is fair. I need to point out, Clinton's campaign laundered payments to Steele for the Russian dossier through her Perkin Coi law firm booked incorrectly as "legal fees" and then to FusionGPS. Fabricating the biggest election interference hoax of all time. Still claims its all true today. And got away with it with just a nominal fine. Why isn't NYS pursuing charges against Hillary, the campaign, and law firm? Because she's a Democrat and the powers aren't out for her scalp. Given the Trump transgression is less impactful I think my question is appropriate. Also, I wonder how others disguise NDA payments they wish to keep secret? Edited April 23 by All_Pro_Bills 1
Tiberius Posted April 23 Posted April 23 33 minutes ago, Pokebball said: That is the goal of the lawfare, right? The goal of good Americans
ChiGoose Posted April 23 Posted April 23 21 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: OK. but fair is fair. I need to point out, Clinton's campaign laundered payments to Steele for the Russian dossier through her Perkin Coi law firm booked incorrectly as "legal fees" and then to FusionGPS. Fabricating the biggest election interference hoax of all time. Still claims its all true today. And got away with it with just a nominal fine. Why isn't NYS pursuing charges against Hillary, the campaign, and law firm? Because she's a Democrat and the powers aren't out for her scalp. Given the Trump transgression is less impactful I think my question is appropriate. Also, I wonder how others disguise NDA payments they wish to keep secret? Because Hillary paid it from the campaign, not through a NY business. Different laws, different jurisdictions. Had Trump done the same thing through the Trump campaign, he'd have been in the same boat as Hillary. 2 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted April 23 Posted April 23 (edited) 2 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Because Hillary paid it from the campaign, not through a NY business. Different laws, different jurisdictions. Had Trump done the same thing through the Trump campaign, he'd have been in the same boat as Hillary. Sure, but she perpetrated a hoax that influenced the election and inhibited the functioning of the Trump administration for the entire 4 year term while creating a lasting false narrative the faithful still believe to this day. And she continues to lie about it. So it's okay to lie and fabricate disinformation on the opposition candidate as long as the campaign pays for it? As for Trump I could argue no harm, no foul. So the payment was classified "legal expenses". So what? What harm or damage did the State of New York incur? Nothing. Or anyone else? Nothing. The money was not used or derived from any criminal activity or enterprise. There was no crime or illegal act before or after the payment. The payment itself was not illegal or was the NDA. No taxes or payments to any government or private individual were missed or mis-calculated. There was no victim, period. So the charge is a violation of the law that caused no harm to anyone. That seems utterly foolish. But representative of the times we live in today where critical and logical thinking is optional. Even if there is a conviction which is likely given the stacked jury, an appeals court will most certainly reject the States argument and dismiss the case. But the goal would have already been achieved. Not to send Trump to prison but to tie him up in court and keep him off the campaign trail for as long as possible to give that feeble old fool enough slack to maybe pull off a re-election bid. A diabolical but effective plan. Edited April 23 by All_Pro_Bills 1
Recommended Posts