*Hush Money, Gone Bad!!!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

This was covered in the Supreme court ruling on Citizens United.

Nope... That is your take...
Trump has been charged, they are making a scase and you want to ignore everything and start a new denfence again...
Doesn't work that way...

Nope... They are not legitmate business expenses...
Are you stupid, even Trump admits they are not legitimate Business expenses..

Paying her is not illegal...

But as said before...
It is not a Business Expense.
It was an undisclosed campaign contribution.
It is an illegal use of Campaign funding..

This is why this is a felony and not a misdemeanour...

Turns out it is very hard to buy silence 11 days before an election legally..

This was covered in the Supreme court ruling on Citizens United.

Citizens United said you could benefit a campaign and not declare it a donation?

Are you sure?

Nope... They are not legitmate business expenses...

NDAs are deductible expenses.

It is not a Business Expense.
It was an undisclosed campaign contribution.
It is an illegal use of Campaign funding..

A business paid her.
That makes it a business expense. Some expenses are not deductible.
Some are deductible, like NDAs.
It's not a campaign expense, as you just admitted, a business paid her, not the campaign.
You're wrong twice, not illegal, not a campaign expense.

 

[CowboyTed]

Seems like sound advice.

I will however make my own (pained) prediction.

The criminal justice system allows for a presumption of innocence and a beyond reasonable doubt standard in which 12 members of a jury have too agree. I'm pretty skeptical that the available information about the evidence would be sufficient to overcome that hurdle.

Even if you're skeptical about the likely argument that he did what he did to avoid Melania finding out (and I am.) I think it will be very hard to prove it's untrue to the satisfaction of a full jury.

I see where you are coming from but I think :
He wanted to pay her off 11 days before an election after 11 years... Micheal Cohen (might not be a great witness) further ties him in... Then there will be a paper trail and tapes...
Yes, his lawyers will try and expand the idea that he was trying to protect Melania, but everyone know it is BS... Trump showed no remorse towards Melania at the time. Juries don't play that dumb and say well it could be possible, that is not reasonable.

 

[Care4all]

NDAs are tax deductible.

In every situation? No restrictions on individuals or businesses, at all?

 

[Faun]

Sorry bout that,

1. So, Stephanie, the person known as Stormy Danials, didn't stay hushed eh? crazy stuff.
2. So she got the hush many, and yet we are trying to make, Trump pay again? crazy stuff.
3. Manafort is some how involved, a witness to the payoff, so she did get paid? crazy liberal stuff.
4. I see no laws broken, prostitute got paid to be quite, she got the money right? " "
5. Some Karen MacDoggel, another paid prostitute, she gets like 150,00, she was paid right?
6. Again no law broken.
7. Intent is what is best known, we know and see that the left will attack him for, EVERTHING, that comes to their rabbit brains.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

Karen McDougal was a Playboy model. That makes her a prostitute?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In every situation? No restrictions on individuals or businesses, at all?

In 2017, NDAs to cover up sexual harassment or abuse were made non-deductible.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Seems like sound advice.

I will however make my own (pained) prediction.

The criminal justice system allows for a presumption of innocence and a beyond reasonable doubt standard in which 12 members of a jury have too agree. I'm pretty skeptical that the available information about the evidence would be sufficient to overcome that hurdle.

Even if you're skeptical about the likely argument that he did what he did to avoid Melania finding out (and I am.) I think it will be very hard to prove it's untrue to the satisfaction of a full jury.

It went public and was known about, in 2011 and Stormy was not paid off back then to keep it from Melania is what I have read.

But I do agree, I think there is a good chance that there could be no conviction or hung jury depending on what Bragg has to show....

If they have in fact communications showing that the intent was to stiff Daniels by delaying payment until after the election to not pay and allowing the information to come out after votes are cast...

They will have a pretty uphill problem to show that it was protect Melania (who knew in 2011 because it was already published in the media) or to protect the Trump "Brand". What the brand doesn't have to be protected after the election?

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

In every situation? No restrictions on individuals or businesses, at all?

He always leaves off the part about them being deductible by a business when related to the business.

Boinking a porn star while on vacation in Vegas attending a golf tournament? Not so much. He's trying to equate office sexual harassments and NDA's related to the business to any private action.

WW

 

[Faun]

This was covered in the Supreme court ruling on Citizens United.

Citizens United said you could benefit a campaign and not declare it a donation?

Are you sure?

Nope... They are not legitmate business expenses...

NDAs are deductible expenses.

It is not a Business Expense.
It was an undisclosed campaign contribution.
It is an illegal use of Campaign funding..

A business paid her.
That makes it a business expense. Some expenses are not deductible.
Some are deductible, like NDAs.
It's not a campaign expense, as you just admitted, a business paid her, not the campaign.
You're wrong twice, not illegal, not a campaign expense.

A business did not pay her. Michael Cohen paid her.

 

[CowboyTed]

Trump paid illegal Campaign donation using Business Expense...

You say it's a campaign expense because supposedly it was a benefit.
Like a positive New York Times story is a benefit.

You are fishing and getting no bites..
This close to an election it campaign contribution, Trump's lawyers are going to try and say it was to protect Melania's feelings ...
Seriously, Melania was pissed the story got out but she knows he is a dog. She had an affair with him on his second wife...
Can try it, I don't anyone is believing it, it is utter BS and everyone can see as such... People in New York aren't that fucking gullible.

Now the payment it's self is unreported and Trump can't justify spending campaign funds on a NDA

He didn't spend campaign funds, as you said, he used business funds.

Again, paying for the silence of porn star that close to an election.
Yu or me ain't deciding this but that Jury will see it for what it is..

You are saying he could call her a consultant

In response to your false claim.

No after the fact... Again

Could Trump have hired as a Consultant months before the election and put her on a huge salary... Yes... She would paid tax on it and it would have been legal...

Or he could have paid her for an NDA, with she also has to pay taxes on.

Again, if he got the NDA before he came down the escalator, he is in the clear..
He didn't, because he is a thick as dogshit...

 

[CowboyTed]

A business did not pay her. Michael Cohen paid her.

Get with the program... Trump already admitted paying Cohen to pay her...

Trump Admits To Authorizing Stormy Daniels Payoff, Denies Sexual Encounter

In a Fox News interview, the former New York mayor turned presidential lawyer appeared to contradict the president's claims not to have known about the 2016 payment.

www.npr.org

The biggest problem with this case is the bouts of amnesia MAGA cult get on what Trump has said.

The funniest thing about the MAGA defence is that they don't care about facts or the truth... First they say it didn't happen and then everyone know it happens... Then Cohen paid him with out Trump knowledge, until we see he signed the checks to cohen... The it was booking error....

It goes on and on... The prosecution is simply showed that Trump was lying, get found out, lie some more, get found out some more... The Jury won't believe anything the Trump defence says because they ain't that gullibale.

 

[CowboyTed]

He always leaves off the part about them being deductible by a business when related to the business.

Boinking a porn star while on vacation in Vegas attending a golf tournament? Not so much. He's trying to equate office sexual harassments and NDA's related to the business to any private action.

WW

They are grasping and trying to use defences that plays on Fox News but won't work in a court room...

He tries that in a court room and he will be eaten alive...

The MAGA think what there pundits and Trump boosters say about the law is true...Trump is on record trying every line he can to get out of it, this will be shown to a Jury and the prosecution will say, why didn't he just use the truth? Cause Truth makes him guilty as fuck.

 

[Faun]

Get with the program... Trump already admitted paying Cohen to pay her...

Trump Admits To Authorizing Stormy Daniels Payoff, Denies Sexual Encounter

In a Fox News interview, the former New York mayor turned presidential lawyer appeared to contradict the president's claims not to have known about the 2016 payment.

www.npr.org

The biggest problem with this case is the bouts of amnesia MAGA cult get on what Trump has said.

The funniest thing about the MAGA defence is that they don't care about facts or the truth... First they say it didn't happen and then everyone know it happens... Then Cohen paid him with out Trump knowledge, until we see he signed the checks to cohen... The it was booking error....

It goes on and on... The prosecution is simply showed that Trump was lying, get found out, lie some more, get found out some more... The Jury won't believe anything the Trump defence says because they ain't that gullibale.

He reimbursed Cohen after the election. Cohen made the payment to Daniels.

 

[Care4all]

This was covered in the Supreme court ruling on Citizens United.

Citizens United said you could benefit a campaign and not declare it a donation?

Are you sure?

Nope... They are not legitmate business expenses...

NDAs are deductible expenses.

It is not a Business Expense.
It was an undisclosed campaign contribution.
It is an illegal use of Campaign funding..

A business paid her.
That makes it a business expense. Some expenses are not deductible.
Some are deductible, like NDAs.
It's not a campaign expense, as you just admitted, a business paid her, not the campaign.
You're wrong twice, not illegal, not a campaign expense.

Unlimited and direct donations by corporations to a presidential campaign is not Legal??

 

[WorldWatcher]

Unlimited and direct donations by corporations to a presidential campaign is not Legal??

The don't acknowledge that Donald J. Trump (individual and candidate) is a separate legal entity from the Trump Organization (a corporation).

DJT can make unlimited contributions (direct or in-kind) directly to his campaign, his corporation cannot.

WW

 

[Care4all]

View attachment 934467

If they have in fact communications showing that the intent was to stiff Daniels by delaying payment until after the election to not pay and allowing the information to come out after votes are cast...

They will have a pretty uphill problem to show that it was protect Melania (who knew in 2011 because it was already published in the media) or to protect the Trump "Brand". What the brand doesn't have to be protected after the election?

WW

Ohhhhhhh....!! Ok!

 

[forkup]

I see where you are coming from but I think :
He wanted to pay her off 11 days before an election after 11 years... Micheal Cohen (might not be a great witness) further ties him in... Then there will be a paper trail and tapes...
Yes, his lawyers will try and expand the idea that he was trying to protect Melania, but everyone know it is BS... Trump showed no remorse towards Melania at the time. Juries don't play that dumb and say well it could be possible, that is not reasonable.

I think that any opinion that relies on the proposition that "everybody knows" is one that rests on shaky ground. If indeed "everybody knows" we wouldn't be in this mess. I said this in another OP not to long ago. Just because you don't share the internal logic of another person, doesn't mean that person doesn't have one.

As for juries not playing that dumb. The simple fact of the matter is that juries, if they take their job seriously, work under certain restraints that are designed to be favorable to a defendant. One of which by the way is that they can't go by what "everybody knows" only by what evidence is presented in court. Which is my point. Don't get me wrong. You might be, and I certainly hope so, be right. Just don't make the mistake of mistaking your wish for reality.

 

[forkup]

View attachment 934467

If they have in fact communications showing that the intent was to stiff Daniels by delaying payment until after the election to not pay and allowing the information to come out after votes are cast...

They will have a pretty uphill problem to show that it was protect Melania (who knew in 2011 because it was already published in the media) or to protect the Trump "Brand". What the brand doesn't have to be protected after the election?

WW

Depends I think on who participated in those communications and if they can show that it was DJT who was directing the payments. If it just relies on Cohen's say so it's not as straightforward as you might think. The existence of that communication would convince me probably on it's own. Not sure it would everybody.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. But I do want to at least try to imagine how it'll play in court in front of 12 separate individuals.

 

[CowboyTed]

The don't acknowledge that Donald J. Trump (individual and candidate) is a separate legal entity from the Trump Organization (a corporation).

DJT can make unlimited contributions (direct or in-kind) directly to his campaign, his corporation cannot.

WW

Even if you get through that... Trump being a cheapskate avoided paying tax on the Campaign Donation...

If Trump paided personally, it would have been a campaign donation... Fine, that would be legal...

But it is highly illegal for a Campaign to pay off a woman for an NDA about fucking the candidate a decade earlier..

This was illegal too:

John Edwards used funds to hide affair, court hears

Defence team says most of illegal donation went to an aide and that Edwards is a man of 'many sins but no crimes'

www.theguardian.com

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/26/politics/john-edwards-donald-trump-hush-money/index.html

 

[WorldWatcher]

Depends I think on who participated in those communications and if they can show that it was DJT who was directing the payments. If it just relies on Cohen's say so it's not as straightforward as you might think. The existence of that communication would convince me probably on it's own. Not sure it would everybody.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. But I do want to at least try to imagine how it'll play in court in front of 12 separate individuals.

I agree if based only on Cohen's testimny.

However, the court documents say they have Texts and Emails. If they do that is very different.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Even if you get through that... Trump being a cheapskate avoided paying tax on the Campaign Donation...

If Trump paided personally, it would have been a campaign donation... Fine, that would be legal...

But it is highly illegal for a Campaign to pay off a woman for an NDA about fucking the candidate a decade earlier..

This was illegal too:

John Edwards used funds to hide affair, court hears

Defence team says most of illegal donation went to an aide and that Edwards is a man of 'many sins but no crimes'

www.theguardian.com

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/26/politics/john-edwards-donald-trump-hush-money/index.html

FPOTUS#45 never used campaign funds.

The funds were drawn from the Trump Organization (business entity), not the campaign.

WW