BackAgain
Neutronium Member & truth speaker #StopBrandon
Not at all.Much like Biden impeachment inquiry
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not at all.Much like Biden impeachment inquiry
Meh, that's Bragg's contention. For you there is only one explanation possible, and that's the one that is least favorable to Trump.It of course was fraudulent, as Trump definitely intended to mask the payoff intended to influence the election as a legal expense for his business. You cannot do that. That will be the easy part. That's just the misdemeanor.
These tards think they’re trying the case here.
Where is the crime?
How did you arrive at the conclusion that suppression of the stories was an illegal conspiracy after admitting in the prior paragraph that NDA's are not illegal? Does calling it "hush money" somehow change it's legality?We have spent a lot of effort trying to discover the predicate crime the DA is relying on for the felony enhancement. The lefties here have made all sorts of nonsensical comments about the obligation of the prosecutor to identify the crime- those comments are just made in ignorance- they didn't know the answer so they pretended it was not required.
The judge ruled on this back in February. His ruling was that the underlying (predicate) crime did not have to be included in the indictment, if the facts presented to the Grand Jury were sufficient to show there was grounds for alleging one, and the defense was provided with a bill of particulars that spelled out the crime alleged.
The ruling identified 3 crimes and eliminated one possibility, I listed those 3 that would be allowed in my post #33.
Yesterday in a sidebar, the prosecution finally identified by statute the primary underlying crime they are alleging- it is NY Election Law 17-152. It states:
"Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
So the prosecution's case is that the agreement with Pecker, Cohen, and Trump constitutes a "conspiracy using unlawful means" to promote the election of Trump. Presumably the "unlawful means" is the recording of the payments to Cohen in the accounting system as "legal expenses" and not "hush money", since NDA's are not illegal.
In order to convict, the jury will have to be convinced that Trump was aware that the suppression of the stories was an illegal conspiracy, and that the recording of the payments as legal expenses was intended to hide the agreement with AMI to find and suppress negative stories about Trump.
Hillary Clinton did the exact same thing when she was paying for the Steele Dossiers. That went down on the books as "legal fees". Was Richard Steele working as Hillary's attorney? I don't think so. Just one more example of selective prosecution and one more reason any conviction will be tossed on appeal.Meh, that's Bragg's contention. For you there is only one explanation possible, and that's the one that is least favorable to Trump.
All politicians try to "influence the election". The US Congress has a fund specifically to payoff people who make derogatory accusations against sitting Congresscritters. That's done to shield the person who is being accused from any scrutiny.
Paying an attorney and recording the payment as "legal expenses" is bog-standard bookkeeping notation. I have done the exact same thing, with no intent to conceal that part of the payment was a reimbursement for fees that my attorney paid pursuant to our relationship.
Fuck the evidence, huh? Trump paid Cohen $420,000Its not a requirement, but it is a very common practice.
These 'retainer payments' came out of nowhere after Cohen attempted to purchase the story rights from AMI for $130,000 and continued until the amount Cohen had paid AMI was returned to Cohen. Exactly $130,000.
according to your link, not a crimeThose 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.
With every post, these jokers make clear they have zero experience in business. Zero.Meh, that's Bragg's contention. For you there is only one explanation possible, and that's the one that is least favorable to Trump.
All politicians try to "influence the election". The US Congress has a fund specifically to payoff people who make derogatory accusations against sitting Congresscritters. That's done to shield the person who is being accused from any scrutiny.
Paying an attorney and recording the payment as "legal expenses" is bog-standard bookkeeping notation. I have done the exact same thing, with no intent to conceal that part of the payment was a reimbursement for fees that my attorney paid pursuant to our relationship.
How did you arrive at the conclusion that I had arrived at that conclusion?How did you arrive at the conclusion that suppression of the stories was an illegal conspiracy after admitting in the prior paragraph that NDA's are not illegal? Does calling it "hush money" somehow change it's legality?
I apologize Para...I misunderstood your point!How did you arrive at the conclusion that I had arrived at that conclusion?
I was describing Bragg's theory of the case. Part of that theory is that recording the payments to Cohen as "legal expenses" was evidence that Trump was disguising the payment to Daniels, and that is what makes the payments a "falsification of records with intent to defraud", which is the requirement for the lowest level of the charge (175.05).
The alleged conspiracy to suppress the stories for the purpose of electioneering is what elevates that to a felony (175.10).
That is Bragg's theory in a nutshell.
I think it's a crock of shit. The payments were not fraudulent, and they were recorded as standard bookkeeping notations that every private company uses every day.
No worries, lol.I apologize Para...I misunderstood your point!
Think you mean Christopher Steele.Hillary Clinton did the exact same thing when she was paying for the Steele Dossiers. That went down on the books as "legal fees". Was Richard Steele working as Hillary's attorney? I don't think so. Just one more example of selective prosecution and one more reason any conviction will be tossed on appeal.
Which part is a lie?So we should weigh your fantasies against your lies?
That's almost as amusing as the Attorney General stating that he didn't think Hillary Clinton was "sophisticated" enough about how things work in Washington to be charged with destroying evidence with her secret servers and the Blackberries she took a hammer to!Think you mean Christopher Steele.
The judge denied the motion for dismissal based on selective prosecution for this reason- I shit you not.
He said the illegal payments through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS were made by the Clinton Campaign, not Clinton herself. She was not charged with falsifying business records because the payments were not something she was personally responsible for.
That is what a number of legal experts say.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
Reimbursement for a hush money payment to keep Daniels' story from being published for the purposes of election interference.I'll ask a third and final time to the question you keep deflecting from, what was the proper way for the accountant at the Trump organization to describe the checks written to their lawyer Cohen?
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.
Who else was paying hush money before an election?It's all a nothingburger but it sure does get a rise in Dem's jeans. Hush money to squelch information before a political contest has been happening ever since politics was invented but, somehow, just somehow, Trump is the only one charged with a crime for doing it. Hell, Biden squelched information that he had classified documents just before the 2020 election but he's not facing any charges.
Ummmmmmmmmm, just about everyone, but they were never charged. The following is just presidents, which does not included zillions of others running for office. From NPR, not Fox News:Who else was paying hush money before an election?