'He wrote all of it down?': Prosecutors claim to have handwritten notes of Trump hush money scheme

[elektra]

Again, nonsense. Here are the links you asked for yet AGAIN. The indictment. And the exact citation of the law.

And here's a screenshot of the second link.

View attachment 937277
You've been given EXACTLY what you asked for. And as predictable as water being wet, you've given us snivelling excuse after snivelling excuse to ignore it.

Ignore as you will. Your willful ignorance doesn't change a single thing about the charges Trump faces.

The checks are not falsified? The ledger tracking the checks are not falsified. There is no charge showing the Non Disclosure agreement was a crime?

The entire argument in this thread is proven wrong by your link and quote

 

[Rawley]

Again, Trump has already made it clear that these entries are EXACTLY what Trump wanted them to be.

Here is Trump describing and defending the ledger entries in question.



So what are you arguing? That this was some mistake? Trump has already made it clear, it wasn't.

I'm arguing there is nothing false about the ledger entry. They paid an invoice from the company's lawyer.

That hush money payments to porn stars are 'legal expenses'.

When it's a disbursement paid by the lawyer, yes absolutely Have you ever had a lawyer? Did he ever pay any disbursements on your behalf? How did you record that check to the lawyer?

They aren't. Here's the statement of fact accompanying the indictment. They get very specific.

"The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New
York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the
voting public during the 2016 presidential election."

With the AMI Editor in Chief already testifying that Trump was an explicit participant in the scheme to catch and kill unflattering stories. With these 'catch and kill' payments being fraudulently listed as 'legal expenses'.

This was no mistake. This was by design. With Trump to this day admitting that the entries are exactly what he wanted them to be.

http://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2023-04-04-SOF.pdf

I don't give a rat's ass what FatFuck Bragg alleges, the evidence clearly says there was nothing illegal about the payment to Cohen or how it was recorded in the general ledger.

 

[Flopper]

He bonked Stormy and in an effort to keep it from hurting his election chances, he had Cohen pay her off. Then he falsified records to conceal the pay off. Cohen went to jail for his dirty deeds in behalf of trump. Now it is the fat sleepy assholes turn on the hot seat.

I think that pretty well sums it up. Legally, Trump falsified business records to cover up expenses in financing a conspiracy of catch and kill (creating false news stories to help the candidate and killing stories that are a threat to the candidate) and hush money payoffs to stop the disclosure of information that could hurt a candidate's chance election, all of which are violations of elections laws.

 

[elektra]

Writing of checks, the ledger for the checks, and the invoice to a personal lawyer is not a crime.

 

[Skylar]

The checks are not falsified? The ledger tracking the checks are not falsified. There is no charge showing the Non Disclosure agreement was a crime?

The entire argument in this thread is proven wrong by your link and quote

Says who? Not the grand jury. Not the judge. Not the prosecutors.

Trump will need to convince a jury that hush money payments to porn stars were 'legal expenses' and 'retainers'.

Good luck. That's an uphill slog. As Trump signed each of those checks personally.

If the prosecutors can convince the jury that hush money payments were not legal expenses nor retainers, which seems an easy thing to do, then Trump has already admitted to everything else.

 

[Meister]

Trump will need to convince a jury that hush money payments to porn stars were 'legal expenses' and 'retainers'.

That is not a crime.

 

[Skylar]

I'm arguing there is nothing false about the ledger entry. They paid an invoice from the company's lawyer.

The expenses were listed as 'legal expenses' and 'retainers', with each check signed by Trump personally.

And you'll have a hard time arguing that hush money payments to a porn star were legal expenses or retainers.

Especially after the AMI editor already admitted to the explicit 'catch and kill' plot to shut down bad stories, a plot confirmed by Cohen as being an attempt to influence the election.

When it's a disbursement paid by the lawyer, yes absolutely Have you ever had a lawyer? Did he ever pay any disbursements on your behalf? How did you record that check to the lawyer?

That's not what a retainer is. A retainer is a payment for FUTURE legal expense. Cohen had already made the payment.

Have you ever paid a retainer before? Because the timeline on what you're describing is incompatible with the excuse you're offering.

I don't give a rat's ass what FatFuck Bragg alleges, the evidence clearly says there was nothing illegal about the payment to Cohen or how it was recorded in the general ledger.

Says you, citing yourself.

The AMI editor has already made it exceptionally clear that the purpose of those payments was to funnel money to Stormy Daniels, for the express purpose of keeping her quiet.

Stormy Daniels offered Trump no legal service. Yet Trump intentionally and specifically had those payments to her listed as both 'legal expenses' and 'retainer'.

Both of which were fraudulent. First in the general ledger for the company that Trump controls exclusively. Then on the checks that Trump signed personally. Trump has made it crystal clear that in both cases, that this was intentional and not a mistake.

 

[Skylar]

That is not a crime.

NY 175.10 says otherwise. Paying someone who offered you no legal service as 'legal expenses' and 'retainer' is fraudulent.

 

[Rawley]

The expenses were listed as 'legal expenses' and 'retainers', with each check signed by Trump personally.

And you'll have a hard time arguing that hush money payments to a porn star were legal expenses or retainers.

Especially after the AMI editor already admitted to the explicit 'catch and kill' plot to shut down bad stories, a plot confirmed by Cohen as being an attempt to influence the election.




That's not what a retainer is. A retainer is a payment for FUTURE legal expense. Cohen had already made the payment.

Have you ever paid a retainer before? Because the timeline on what you're describing is incompatible with the excuse you're offering.




Says you, citing yourself.

The AMI president has already made it exceptionally clear that the purpose of those payments was to funnel money to Stormy Daniels, for the express purpose of keeping her quiet.

Stormy Daniels offered Trump no legal service. Yet Trump intentionally and specifically had those payments to her listed as both 'legal expenses' and 'retainer'.

Both of which were fraudulent. First in the general ledger for the company that Trump controls exclusively. Then on the checks that Trump signed personally.

LOL So in your perfect world, the accountant at the Trump should have describe the check written to the lawer Cohen how?

 

[elektra]

Trump will need to convince a jury that hush money payments to porn stars were 'legal expenses' and 'retainers'.

There is no such thing as a "hush money payment"
There is no law stating Trump is charged with paying the non-existent "hush money payment"

all they got is a check, in which they are lying about, there is nothing in the check that is falsified

how should the check of been written, is a great question

 

[elektra]

NY 175.10 says otherwise. Paying someone who offered you no legal service as 'legal expenses' and 'retainer' is fraudulent.

Skyliar, the law says nothing of the sort, you posted a link to the law, you are not quoting from your link to show that what you say is not a lie

 

[para bellum]

It violates nothing and was not required to be listed for the in the indictment.

It's the State law regarding promoting or preventing elections.

Edit: New York Election Law. Section 17-152

Well, that is exactly what I said in my post #33...

 

[Skylar]

LOL So in your perfect world, the accountant at the Trump should have describe the check written to the lawer Cohen how?

Again, you're trying insinuate that Trump didn't know and it was some sort of mistake.

Trump had been crystal clear that the ledger entries in question were EXACTLY what he'd intended them to be, and were not a mistake. Again, in Trump's own words, in his own impromptu press conference, where he defends the citations.



The AMI editor made it clear that the express purpose of the payments was to funnel money to Stormy Daniels. Stormy Daniels offered Trump no legal service whatsoever. Making $130,000 in payments listed as 'legal expenses' and 'retainer' false and fraudulent in both the general ledger and in the checks Trump personally signed.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Remember when your ilk insisted that Trump being required to attend his own criminal trial (just like any other criminal defendant in NY) was a violation of Due Process?

The outrage! The drama!

The profound ignorance of MAGA of what due process was, and how the law actually works.

Nope. Don’t remember that. Another fantasy you made up?

 

[Dadoalex]

Hey assholes, really dicks, assholes can be respected. Your masters lie per my signature. While you fucks concern yourselves with money paid to cover up consenting sex, to you know, "cheat the election", how do you rationalize our govt. and private correlating lies about Hunter's laptop, for instance, to "win an election"?

Compare and contrast the weight of that, dumbshits.

Crickets.......

So we should weigh your fantasies against your lies?

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Again, nonsense. Here are the links you asked for yet AGAIN. The indictment. And the exact citation of the law.

And here's a screenshot of the second link.

View attachment 937277
You've been given EXACTLY what you asked for. And as predictable as water being wet, you've given us snivelling excuse after snivelling excuse to ignore it.

Ignore as you will. Your willful ignorance doesn't change a single thing about the charges Trump faces.

How hard do you think I will be laughing at you when you lose yet again?

 

[Man With A Plan]

A shout out to Big Al for keeping copious records of the hush money payment. The prosecution's case is made a little easier. It kinda makes a mockery of Trump's denial he didn't schtoink Stormy. Sorry Melania, you married an unfaithful pig of a man.

That's all wonderful but paying someone to sign an NDA is not a crime nor is having an affair. Sorry, Berg but this dog of a case simply won't hunt. Even if you on the left can get a totally biased judge and jury to give you a conviction that verdict will be tossed on appeal.

 

[BluesLegend]

LMAO so the Dems have hand written notes documenting no crime was committed, clever.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

View attachment 937284

There is no such thing as a "hush money payment"
There is no law stating Trump is charged with paying the non-existent "hush money payment"

all they got is a check, in which they are lying about, there is nothing in the check that is falsified

how should the check of been written, is a great question

Why is the check not endorsed to Stormy Daniels?
You gottem now leftards!

AAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHAHHAAHHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAA!

 

[Skylar]

View attachment 937284

There is no such thing as a "hush money payment"
There is no law stating Trump is charged with paying the non-existent "hush money payment"

all they got is a check, in which they are lying about, there is nothing in the check that is falsified

how should the check of been written, is a great question

Those were supposed 'monthly retainer checks', as confirmed by the general ledger.

There was no retainer agreement with Michael Cohen. And the fraudulent 'retainer checks' continued for months until the full $130K that Cohen has paid the hush money was repaid to him.

Cohen wasn't being paid for legal services rendered. He was being repaid for the money shunted to Stormy Daniels. Who provided Trump with no legal services. To say nothing of legal 'retainer' services.

Making any citation of 'legal expenses' and 'retainer' fraudulent and false.