Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is the same Cohen that admitted to stealing from Trump and to wanting to testify to get revenge on him, right?
I am even more convinced that you do not know.
Even if Trump is this "Individual 1" and he directed Cohen to make these payments - of which both Cohen and Daniels have claimed Trump did not know about - how is that a crime exactly?
That is a very poor response. If you hope to be persuasive tell us what actually happened with evidence to support your claim..
Sort of. There were more than one NDA plus the payments to "catch and kill". Cohen upon direction of Trump set up an LLC to handle and obscure the payments. He took out a home equity loan to fund the payments. These payments were for the benefit of Trump's campaign and totaled far more than the allowable campaign contributions (election law violation) and came entirely from Cohen's own assets. This was discussed and decided upon by Cohen. TO CFO Weisselberg and Trump and documented by hand-written notes.
No, Donald was not charged years ago because it was against DOJ policy to charge a sitting president for crimes he may have committed (in this case, did commit).
Yes, Cohen was an unreliable witness which is why a mountain of corroborating evidence was presented. Keeping Melania from "finding out" - why would Cohen care about that, was only a putative issue from the time the Access Hollywood tape being made public until the end of the election.
Those people old, out of touch or trying to appeal to a certain type of audience. No idea who Mainor is.
The problem is that to justify extending the statute of limitations, the prosecution had to prove that the documents were internally falsified with the intent of concealing a crime. Some claim that the other "crime" was election interference. However, no evidence was even discussed or presented pointing to election fraud. Even if there was, this would have been a federal crime to be tried in a federal court. Furthermore, the star witness of the prosecution, Michael Cohen, admitted (under oath) that he internally falsified the documents without Trump's knowledge to steal from Trump because he did not get the bonus he felt he deserved! That in itself should have been enough to close the case. But this is Trump we are talking about and the left could not afford to loose this opportunity to destroy him. So the left just covered their ears and pretended Cohen's confession never happened. Again, no such evidence was presented, nor was there any argument that election interference ever happened. So instead, the judge immediately barred any Trump supporter from being in the jury (so much for having a jury of his peers) and instructed them that as long as they "believed" Trump was covering up a crime, it was enough to find him guilty. So not only was this a trial looking for a crime, it was a trial where the court could literally imagine a crime without evidence. So to answer your question, my evidence is a lack of evidence. When asked what crime Trump committed, all I hear is just regurgitation from left wing sources who tell their followers what to think or believe.
Oh, they are part of the "old progressives" because they refused to continue down the slippery slope. Thank you for explaining. Yes, the slippery slope was the vehicle used by the left to slip away. The democratic party did not leave them, the party slipped away from them.
Ok - things are becoming more clear.
It's actually pretty common for "minor crimes" to be charged as felonies when committed while participating in a felony.
He was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the State of New York in the furtherance of hiding tax fraud, illegal campaign contributions, and/or illegal election interference.
Not just tax records though, but for filing false business records with the State to cover up tax fraud, election interference and reimbursement for illegal campaign contributions.
No, being a legal document does not mean it is an expense for legal services. Most contracts are legally binding but that does not mean that associated payments under the contract are "legal expenses". In one sense, if an expense is legal, i.e. not illegal, then it is a legal expense, but in business accounting lingo, a legal expense is specifically for a service by a lawyer or law firm and perhaps associated fees.
No, it isn't. Donald was not convicted by the Feds, but sufficient evidence was presented during the trial to show that the crimes were, in fact, committed even if uncharged.
The Feds did not claim no crimes occurred; they simply declined to prosecute without exonerating him. NY did not charge and convict Donald for Federal crimes but for covering up the commission of those crimes which is a legit, so far, state charge.
No, Trump was judged guilty by a jury on 34 listed charges. Did you even read the verdict or the indictment?
This Supreme Court is a wild card with Maga Alito and Clarence Thomas who as taken literally millions of "gifts" from his dear friend Harlan Crow and whose wife was a major participant in the insurrection.
They were considered campaign contributions because they were made to prevent damage to his status as a candidate. Think of it like an advertising expense: you buy ads to make your guy look good and you buy ads to make the other guy look bad. Your opponent does the same thing in reverse. Advertising/messaging is a big part of a campaign's expenditures and I don't think it's unreasonable to consider as campaign expenses those costs incurred during a campaign to protect a candidate's image . John Edwards was prosecuted for more-or-less the same thing in 2011 for hiding his affair during the 2008 campaign.
No. Read the verdict, the transcripts and/or the indictment.
Yes, the jury was unanimously convinced by the documents, the recordings and all the witness testimony. The recordings have him discussing the structure of the payments with Weisselberg and Cohen, and he personally signed most the checks to Cohen.
That is contrary to fact. Evidence was presented and explained by the prosecution while the defense tried to deny it. Most the trial was given over to that as the signed checks and business records were indisputable.
It could have been but wasn't for whatever reason - none to my knowledge was given. It is not uncommon for state and federal charges to overlap. When both are trying a case, the feds are given priority, but if the feds decline, the state can still pursue charges for which it has laws and jurisdiction.
Why? No honor among thieves is a well known adage. Trump stole from Cohen so Cohen stole back. It was insightful on Cohen's part to record their conversations and maintain contemporaneous notes as his word alone would have been grossly insufficient.
It was discussed at length during the trial by both the prosecution and the defense. You didn't happen to peruse the transcripts, eh?
Of course the evidence was presented - what do you think all the days and weeks of witness testimony was about? The signed checks and false business filings were hard evidence that took up almost no time to present.
No, the jury was not instructed that they could "imagine" any crime; they were instructed that they were to determine if the evidence presented demonstrated that Donald committed the crime(s) and if the evidence showed that the business records were falsified in furtherance of the crime(s).
Don't you even know by now how our court systems work? The president can only pardon federal convictions - he or she has no authority over state convictions.
You mean the ones that Michael Cohen admitted under oath that he falsified without Trump's knowledge?
