Donald Trump indicted by Manhattan grand jury

[BPPLEE]

what's a "consideration"?

Consideration is something of value exchanged between the parties to a contract. Consideration can be many things such as money, property, service, work performance, or a promise to not do something. As long as the parties to the contract exchange something of value between each other, there is consideration.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Stormy Daniels' Attorney Denies Payment from Michael Cohen Was 'Hush Money' | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

Alvin Bragg’s lawfare ‘hush money’ trial against President Trump continued on Thursday after a brief break this week.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

He called it “consideration”, which can be a legal expense.

Consideration can be a legal (as in "lawful") expense. However, unless Trump was paying Ms. Clifford's attorney, a consideration payment to her would not be classified as a "legal expense" (as in "reimbursement for costs incurred by a lawyer or law firm working in your service").

Consideration is something of value exchanged between the parties to a contract. Consideration can be many things such as money, property, service, work performance, or a promise to not do something. As long as the parties to the contract exchange something of value between each other, there is consideration.

Right - and what thing of value did Trump receive in return for this consideration payment?

 

[BPPLEE]

Consideration can be a legal (as in "lawful") expense. However, unless Trump was paying Ms. Clifford's attorney, a consideration payment to her would not be classified as a "legal expense" (as in "reimbursement for costs incurred by a lawyer or law firm working in your service").

Right - and what thing of value did Trump receive in return for this consideration payment?

But Trump made the payments to Cohen.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

But Trump made the payments to Cohen.

Yes. Having your attorney make a deal on your behalf and reimbursing him does not allow you to reclassify that payment as a "legal expense" though. "Legal expenses" generally covers things that lawyers spend money on in the pursuit of a case - records retrieval fees, payments to expert witnesses, office supplies, travel costs, etc.

The only scenario in which that's relevant is if Cohen orchestrated this deal entirely on his own without Trump's knowledge or input, then billed Trump for the costs as "legal expenses". The prosecution is building its case around the idea that that's not what happened.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Consideration is something of value exchanged between the parties to a contract. Consideration can be many things such as money, property, service, work performance, or a promise to not do something. As long as the parties to the contract exchange something of value between each other, there is consideration.

What contract to Ms. Clifford was Mr. Cohen in?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Former Trump press secretary Hope Hicks expected to testify soon, possibly today.

Some background:

The 895-page trove shows that Cohen exchanged a “series of calls, text messages and emails” with Trump; his then-press secretary Hope Hicks; the National Enquirer’s publisher David Pecker and editor Dylan Howard; and Stormy Daniels’ lawyer Keith Davidson.

Details of the communications sharply undermine the denials of Trump and Hicks regarding the campaign-finance violations that sent Cohen to federal prison for three years.

More background:

Hope Hicks witnessed nearly every Trump scandal. Now she must testify.​

Friends say the former aide and Trump have not spoken since she testified to Congress about the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, but the two continue to have fondness for each other

While she emerged from the administration legally unscathed and with her reputation largely intact, Hicks was also present for nearly every scandal that caught the scrutiny of special counsels, U.S. attorneys, congressional committees, grand juries and federal prosecutors.

Trump and Hicks have not spoken since late 2022, when Hicks was called before Congress as it investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, people familiar with their relationship said. Like in the hush money case, her appearance was compelled by a subpoena — but her testimony caused a fracture in her and Trump’s relationship nonetheless.

In another [text message sent on Jan 6th], she offered more biting criticism of Trump, writing, “In one day he ended every future opportunity that doesn’t include speaking engagements at the local Proud Boys chapter.”

 

[SimplyMe]

Yes, so saying "70 million off the case" is a lie, unless of course the case started in 2018 and the ONLY thing Authentic campaigns used to raise money was the Trump case.

Personally I think there are good reasons for Biden to pardon Trump for the Hush money case
but I know you don't think the article is valid, you would not have a Problem if the judge had a daughter that worked had clients that raised money for Republicans for 6 years the briefly mentioned "Support trump he has been indicted" in a tiny fraction of their spam emails. I would not have a problem with it either.

Biden cannot pardon Trump fr the Hush money case. This case is being brought by New York, not the federal government, and the President can only pardon federal convictions.

 

[perplexed]

I said raised millions off the case. Not 70 million,

Yes you read a headline without reading the article let alone reading it critically and paraphrased it without including a dollar figure

I picked it apart and you responded by cutting and pasting an article without reading it critically.

 

[wing2000]

Former Trump press secretary Hope Hicks expected to testify soon, possibly today.

It should be interesting....

 

[wing2000]

Hicks is now on the witness stand.

Donald Trump has been looking at Hope Hicks and watched as she was sworn in by the clerk. She quickly glanced at Trump and is now looking at Matthew Colangelo, the prosecutor doing her direct examination. “I’m really nervous,” she said as her testimony kicked off. She asked Colangelo if she was speaking into the microphone enough.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/03/trump-hush-money-trial-live-updates/#link-SY6SYFS7SVAZLGHLNEXUAWGPX4

 

[essentialsaltes]

“Were you ever in and out of [Trump’s] office when Mr. Pecker was meeting with Mr. Trump at Trump Tower?” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo asked Hicks.
“I don’t have a recollection of that but it’s certainly possible,” Hicks answered.


[from link above]

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes you read a headline without reading the article let alone reading it critically and paraphrased it without including a dollar figure

I picked it apart and you responded by cutting and pasting an article without reading it critically.

I posted an article yes. I posted 2 articles, after you said my post wasn’t true.
The original comment you were responding to ( that didn’t come from either article) was that the judge’s daughter had raised millions off the Trump case but Trump can’t mention this because of the gag order

 

[BPPLEE]

Yes. Having your attorney make a deal on your behalf and reimbursing him does not allow you to reclassify that payment as a "legal expense" though. "Legal expenses" generally covers things that lawyers spend money on in the pursuit of a case - records retrieval fees, payments to expert witnesses, office supplies, travel costs, etc.

The only scenario in which that's relevant is if Cohen orchestrated this deal entirely on his own without Trump's knowledge or input, then billed Trump for the costs as "legal expenses". The prosecution is building its case around the idea that that's not what happened.

Hope Hicks testified that Trump was worried about his wife finding out about the Stormy Daniels story and even ordered that no newspapers be delivered to their home.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Hope Hicks testified that Trump was worried about his wife finding out about the Stormy Daniels story and even ordered that no newspapers be delivered to their home. She said he didn’t say anything about the election to her.

That still wouldn't make it a "legal expense". If she's telling the truth - and if Trump told her the truth - then that would remove the underlying crime of elections fraud that upgrades the falsified business records to a felony, but the records have still been falsified.

 

[Hank77]

Hope Hicks testified that Trump was worried about his wife finding out about the Stormy Daniels story and even ordered that no newspapers be delivered to their home. She said he didn’t say anything about the election to her.

Really? Hope Hicks believed him? Did he have the TV and internet terminated at their home as well?

Why wouldn't Melania believe him that Daniels and McDougal supposedly happened years ago and only now when he's running for president do they try to get money out of him? Maybe Melania already didn't trust him so he did need to worry about that.

 

[wing2000]

Hope Hicks testified that Trump was worried about his wife finding out about the Stormy Daniels story and even ordered that no newspapers be delivered to their home. She said he didn’t say anything about the election to her.

You (or your source?) are not telling the whole of her testimony.


As news of a pair of sex scandals hit Donald Trump and his campaign in October 2016, he asked his top communications aide to hide the newspapers from his wife the day it would appear in print, the former adviser testified.

“He was concerned with how it would be viewed by his wife and he wanted me to makes sure the newspapers weren’t delivered to their residence that morning,” Hope Hicks testified at Trump’s hush money trial Friday afternoon.
But Hicks, who later joined Trump at the White House, also testified that Trump would have asked her about the impact the story would have on his run for office.

“Everything we talked about in the context of this time period in this time frame was about whether or not there was an impact to the campaign,” Hicks testified. “I don’t want to speculate but I’m almost certain he would have asked me how [the story] is playing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/03/trump-hush-money-trial-live-updates/#link-X5NOGOZV3JEO7AKXF72MFGTQAY

 

[BPPLEE]

That still wouldn't make it a "legal expense". If she's telling the truth - and if Trump told her the truth - then that would remove the underlying crime of elections fraud that upgrades the falsified business records to a felony, but the records have still been falsified.

Which would make it a misdemeanor for which the statute of limitations has expired.
The judge also allowed testimony about the Access Hollywood tape which I think may be grounds for an appeal because it has nothing to do with the case and prejudices the jury

 

[BPPLEE]

Really? Hope Hicks believed him? Did he have the TV and internet terminated at their home as well?

Why wouldn't Melania believe him that Daniels and McDougal supposedly happened years ago and only now when he's running for president do they try to get money out of him? Maybe Melania already didn't trust him so he did need to worry about that.

I don’t know but the prosecution’s case is weak and they are depending on a jury that doesn’t like Trump which they probably have.

 

[BPPLEE]

You (or your source?) are not telling the whole of her testimony.


As news of a pair of sex scandals hit Donald Trump and his campaign in October 2016, he asked his top communications aide to hide the newspapers from his wife the day it would appear in print, the former adviser testified.

“He was concerned with how it would be viewed by his wife and he wanted me to makes sure the newspapers weren’t delivered to their residence that morning,” Hope Hicks testified at Trump’s hush money trial Friday afternoon.
But Hicks, who later joined Trump at the White House, also testified that Trump would have asked her about the impact the story would have on his run for office.

“Everything we talked about in the context of this time period in this time frame was about whether or not there was an impact to the campaign,” Hicks testified. “I don’t want to speculate but I’m almost certain he would have asked me how [the story] is playing.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/03/trump-hush-money-trial-live-updates/#link-X5NOGOZV3JEO7AKXF72MFGTQAY

She kind of danced around saying yes, this sounds like probably.

 

[Hank77]

I don’t know but the prosecution’s case is weak

I agree with that.

they are depending on a jury that doesn’t like Trump which they probably have.

If they are they shouldn't be. From what I read about the makeup of the jury it's likely that there a some strong personalities that are not adverse to Trump or honorable enough to give an unbiased verdict.