*Hush Money, Gone Bad!!!!

[BluesLegend]

When all else fails we can always count on you MAGA tards to go apeshit over Hunter's laptop. But it won't change the fact that the head MAGA Ape will be in court for the next 4-6 weeks, so have your fun.

Btw, shit gibbon Trump has not previously attended the H.S. graduation of ANY of his offspring.

Tip of the Dem corruption iceberg.

 

[Crepitus]

Wow, can you imagine how badly he’d be beating Biden if he were campaigning?

Not at all.

 

[Rawley]

They may or may not be depending.

If FPOTUS#45 wasn't running for office and paid Daniels $130,000 in 2013? You would be correct.

However the Trump Campaign had seen the Bush "Grab'em by the Vagina" video released, they were trying to keep any other indiscretions from becoming public. The purpose of the payment was specifically to "catch and kill" the story so that it didn't have a negative impact on the campaign. As such the transaction is what is called an "in kind" contribution to the campaign since it's purpose was to influence the election.

I even in read one one of the briefs, that the desire was to delay the payment until after the election because one the election was over they could stiff the person and not have to pay them.

If such testimony is presented in court, there goes the "protect the brand argument".

WW
.
.
.
.

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

View attachment 933010

You should research the Irrespective Test. It dooms Bragg's case. It's why the FEC didn't take up the campaign finance complaint against Trump.

Personal use - FEC.gov

Using campaign funds for personal use is prohibited. FEC guidance on which expenses are considered to be personal use and which expenses are considered on a case-by-case basis, including charitable donations, gifts, candidate salary, meals, vehicles, travel and legal expenses

www.fec.gov

 

[Rawley]

The problem for Trump is he listed the payments as legal fees on his books. That was deducted from his taxes. That is tax evasion. That is a crime.

No he didn't. Simply making shit up doesn't help your cause.

 

[Crepitus]

TRump is charged with prostitution? what?

Is he?

Ask the guy I quoted.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You should research the Irrespective Test. It's dooms Bragg's case. It's why the FEC didn't take up the campaign finance complaint against Trump.

I understand the Irrespective Test. It basically says if there is a plausible alternative reason it must be considered.

However, the alterntive must be reasonable. Some considerations for FPOTUS#45 include:

1. He didn't want is family to find out,
2. He didn't want to damage his "brand", and
3. He did it to benefit the campaign.

For a reasonable person to believe #1 and #2 the attempt would need to be a permeant (or perceived permanent) solution. If on the other hand the solution was temporary and only for the duration of the remaining campaign and to get past the election, only a short term solution is needed.

So from court documents in the court documents in the case we have:

In plan English, supposedly to be supported by in person testimony and contemporaneous evidence (texts and emails) it can be shown that FPOTUS#45 wanted to stall the money payment until after the election when it wouldn't matter. On other words a short term solution aimed at benefiting the campaign.

Also pertaining to #1 and #2, the boinking of the porn star occurred in 2006, the story had originally been published in - IIRC - 2011 or 2013 so the story was ALREADY public knowledge. Therefore there was no claim to "protecting the family" as they already knew, there was no claim on "protecting the brand" because everyone and their brother already knew the stories and that FPOTUS#45 was a horn dog.

Therefore, a reasonable person, if such evidence were presented in court would logically conclude that such action only days before the election in a manner that would have allowed the story to come out after the election was only done to protect the campaign and influence the results.

WW

 

[Rawley]

I understand the Irrespective Test. It basically says if there is a plausible alternative reason it must be considered.

However, the alterntive must be reasonable. Some considerations for FPOTUS#45 include:

1. He didn't want is family to find out,
2. He didn't want to damage his "brand", and
3. He did it to benefit the campaign.

For a reasonable person to believe #1 and #2 the attempt would need to be a permeant (or perceived permanent) solution. If on the other hand the solution was temporary and only for the duration of the remaining campaign and to get past the election, only a short term solution is needed.

So from court documents in the court documents in the case we have:

View attachment 933183

In plan English, supposedly to be supported by in person testimony and contemporaneous evidence (texts and emails) it can be shown that FPOTUS#45 wanted to stall the money payment until after the election when it wouldn't matter. On other words a short term solution aimed at benefiting the campaign.

Also pertaining to #1 and #2, the boinking of the porn star occurred in 2006, the story had originally been published in - IIRC - 2011 or 2013 so the story was ALREADY public knowledge. Therefore there was no claim to "protecting the family" as they already knew, there was no claim on "protecting the brand" because everyone and their brother already knew the stories and that FPOTUS#45 was a horn dog.

Therefore, a reasonable person, if such evidence were presented in court would logically conclude that such action only days before the election in a manner that would have allowed the story to come out after the election was only done to protect the campaign and influence the results.

WW

LOL And you and Bragg are depending on the convicted serial liar to make this argument. LOL too funny Cohen will be DESTROYED on cross.

 

[WorldWatcher]

LOL And you and Bragg are depending on the convicted serial liar to make this argument. LOL too funny Cohen will be DESTROYED on cross.

The old fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.

To claim that the entire case depends on a single person. That isn't the case, the trial is projected to take 4-6 weeks and IIRC the prosecution witness list is about 42 individuals. Those individuals will cooberate the testimony of others and confirm evidence. IIRC the prosecution witness is incudes:

• Michael Cohen
• Stormy Daniels
• Keith Davidson
• Karen McDougal
• David Pecker
• Dylan Howard
• Jeffrey McConney
• Kellyanne Conway
• Rhona Graff
• Madeline Westerhout
• Hope Hicks
• Plus others

Notice that testimony will be offered not just from Cohen and Daniels, it will be presented by FPOTUS#45 insiders and staff members. Their testimony will introduce a variety of evidence such as phone records, audio tapes, texts, emails, and other documents.

If you think the case is going to based on Cohen alone, please continue to believe that as everyone likes a surprise.

WW

 

[Magnus]

Aww....you poor girl, dial back the estrogen.

Sure, retard. Accept your surrender. Next time, know the issue before jumping in. Class dismissed.

 

[struth]

I understand the Irrespective Test. It basically says if there is a plausible alternative reason it must be considered.

However, the alterntive must be reasonable. Some considerations for FPOTUS#45 include:

1. He didn't want is family to find out,
2. He didn't want to damage his "brand", and
3. He did it to benefit the campaign.

For a reasonable person to believe #1 and #2 the attempt would need to be a permeant (or perceived permanent) solution. If on the other hand the solution was temporary and only for the duration of the remaining campaign and to get past the election, only a short term solution is needed.

So from court documents in the court documents in the case we have:

View attachment 933183

In plan English, supposedly to be supported by in person testimony and contemporaneous evidence (texts and emails) it can be shown that FPOTUS#45 wanted to stall the money payment until after the election when it wouldn't matter. On other words a short term solution aimed at benefiting the campaign.

Also pertaining to #1 and #2, the boinking of the porn star occurred in 2006, the story had originally been published in - IIRC - 2011 or 2013 so the story was ALREADY public knowledge. Therefore there was no claim to "protecting the family" as they already knew, there was no claim on "protecting the brand" because everyone and their brother already knew the stories and that FPOTUS#45 was a horn dog.

Therefore, a reasonable person, if such evidence were presented in court would logically conclude that such action only days before the election in a manner that would have allowed the story to come out after the election was only done to protect the campaign and influence the results.

WW

The problem is your start witness, already testified that trump never believed he was gonna win the election

 

[Rawley]

The old fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.

To claim that the entire case depends on a single person. That isn't the case, the trial is projected to take 4-6 weeks and IIRC the prosecution witness list is about 42 individuals. Those individuals will cooberate the testimony of others and confirm evidence. IIRC the prosecution witness is incudes:

• Michael Cohen
• Stormy Daniels
• Keith Davidson
• Karen McDougal
• David Pecker
• Dylan Howard
• Jeffrey McConney
• Kellyanne Conway
• Rhona Graff
• Madeline Westerhout
• Hope Hicks
• Plus others

Notice that testimony will be offered not just from Cohen and Daniels, it will be presented by FPOTUS#45 insiders and staff members. Their testimony will introduce a variety of evidence such as phone records, audio tapes, texts, emails, and other documents.

If you think the case is going to based on Cohen alone, please continue to believe that as everyone likes a surprise.

WW

Good luck with that. LOL

 

[WorldWatcher]

The problem is your start witness, already testified that trump never believed he was gonna win the election

He's not "my start witness", see post #108. There are going to be many witness that help build the picture and confirm the evidence.

Then it will up to the jury.

WW

 

[SavannahMann]

No he didn't. Simply making shit up doesn't help your cause.

It must be hard to be that ignorant.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/live-blog/trump-hush-money-trial-stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-live-updates-rcna145934#

The charges from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg stem from a $130,000 payment Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen made to adult film actor Stormy Daniels at the end of the 2016 election cycle to keep her from going public with an allegation that she and Trump had had an affair. Trump then repaid Cohen in installments marked as legal fees in company records.

 

[struth]

He's not "my start witness", see post #108. There are going to be many witness that help build the picture and confirm the evidence.

Then it will up to the jury.

WW

Who are the other witnesses that could say what the payment purpose was?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sure, retard. Accept your surrender. Next time, know the issue before jumping in. Class dismissed.

I hope your transition improves, you seem to be going through a rough spot.

 

[Rawley]

It must be hard to be that ignorant.

But your still manage it. LOL "That was deducted from his taxes. That is tax evasion. That is a crime. "

You don't think FatFuck Bragg or FatFuck James wouldn't have charge him with tax evasion? LOL

 

[Rawley]

Who are the other witnesses that could say what the payment purpose was?

No one. He cited FatFuck Bragg's paragraph from Cohen's testimony, twice.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Who are the other witnesses that could say what the payment purpose was?

No one. He cited FatFuck Bragg's paragraph from Cohen's testimony, twice.

See post 108.

And he listed quite a few others including FPOTUS#45 associates.

WW

 

[Rawley]

See post 108.

And he listed quite a few others including FPOTUS#45 associates.

WW

Curious that the only one you cited was the convicted serial liar and FatFuck Bragg's star witness.

 

[Magnus]

I hope your transition improves, you seem to be going through a rough spot.

…but you will always remain a retard.