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.
Yep they did get their conviction. This is about Trump........and Cohen's conviction has nothing to do with Trump. Which you appear to continue to ignore. I don't...
Not on Trumps part. That is what the feds concluded when they prosecuted Cohen. It did not prove anything about Trump to them, so......Except that it proves you are wrong when you claim that money paid for an NDA is not a campaign contribution.
That's why Trump was charged with falsifying business documents in an attempt to conceal Cohen's crime.Not on Trumps part.
The Trump Organization maintained the ledgers and filed false documentation, but the first two payments were made from the Trump Revocable Trust (which Trump supposedly was blind to, heh, heh, heh) signed by trustees Junior and Weisselberg but the Trump Organization maintained the records, including the bogus invoices from Cohen and filed the records with the state of NY.It's also true that corporations are not allowed to make any donations directly to political campaigns, and at least some of the reimbursements were made to Cohen through the Trump Organization. I'm not clear on whether or not this played into any of the charges, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.
An NDA may or may not be legal, depending on the circumstances. As I mentioned before, Trump tried to impose NDAs on White House staff, which were non-enforceable, aka not legal.I know what COHEN bought. He bought stormy Daniels silence as that is what non disclosure agreements DO. And they are Legal, not illegal.
Cohen did not do it on his own as the recordings and hand-written notations verified. Trump doesn't do things himself - he pays others to do it to maintain plausible deniability.Even if Donald Trump knew Cohen did it on his own (ridiculous because Trump could have easily done it himself, unlike Edwards) it is not illegal.
No, that's not how it works. Trump lent his campaign money which was repaid with interest. He also charged his campaign oodles of moolah to use his venues, perhaps even overcharging if Stephanie Winston Wolkoff is to believed.Edwards accepted campaign Money, he used for a hidden purpose. Trumps money they turned into campaign money, simply because he was running for office.
Do you ever read the links provided? From the link kindly provided:The judge would not allow the defense to question Smith on what they wanted to ask him.
They wanted to show that there was no campaign finance violation, but the judge would not allow it.
Yet, His Crime and plea was not Trumps crime. Nor did they think anything amiss on the federal level.
Turley got it right in their legal decision........
How does that contradict what I said?Do you ever read the links provided? From the link kindly provided:
The People's motion is GRANTED. That the FEC dismissed the complaint againstDefendant and the DOJ decided against prosecuting Defendant for potential FECA violations are probative of nothing. These matters are therefore irrelevant and Defendant is precluded from eliciting testimony or introducing evidence about both. There are countless reasons why the FEC and DOJ could have decided not to pursue enforcement against Defendant, all having nothing to do with whether he is guilty of the charges here against him.
The payments were not what would influence the election. It was the Stormy Daniels story coming out. Trump was courting evangelicals and the "family values" crowd, and the concern was the story about his cheating on his wife by having sex with a porn star would cause him to lose enough support to lose the election. The info NOT being revealed, because she was paid to be silent, kept relevant information from voters that some may have considered in choosing a candidate. In hindsight, its likely the "unfaithful in little, unfaithful in much" family values crowd was still willing to toss those values for the power of a candidate willing to do their bidding, but his support was not so entrenched at the time. The payment of hush money coming out and affecting the election was not the issue, it was the story they quashed. Cohen contributed to Trump's election when he paid to stop it.From Jonathan Turley concerning a witness not allowed. Brad Smith was ready to testify.....
Without knowing election law, none of us knows what we are talking about. It was not allowed to the jury either....... Nor did Merchan speak to it either
The hill
Begin quote: "Merchan also barred the use of a legal expert, former FEC Chair Brad Smith, who was prepared to testify that such payments cannot be viewed as federal election violations and would not affect the election even if they were considered contributions, since they would not even have had to be reported until after the election."
"Merchan is likely to be upheld in denying the expert, since the court retains the authority to state what the law is to the jury. The problem is that Merchan failed to do so. Worse still, he allowed the jury to hear the opposite in the repeated false claim that these payments were campaign contributions." end quote
Why? Because northern NY has gone Trumpy?This is why Trump's conviction is going to win him the White House.
The jury disagreesBut that was not proven
There was ample testimony that Trump was aware of and approved of the scheme that Weisselberg and Cohen came to him with about how to structure the payments as an imaginary monthly legal retainer with additional padding for taxes.all that was proven was SOMEONE marked the payment down as legal expenses.
Trump is partly to blame for that. He fought the subpoena for his (falsified) business documents all the way to the Supreme Court.it took how many years for this to come after the crime?
I expected it to. Everyone did. No one thought he would have been found innocent in this case.The jury disagrees
That not what 'everyone' was saying when Bragg brought the indictment. He was being criticized for bringing a case where he couldn't secure a conviction.I expected it to. Everyone did. No one thought he would have been found innocent in this case.
when it went to trial. No one I know thought he could get a fair trial. let alone be found innocent..That not what 'everyone' was saying when Bragg brought the indictment. He was being criticized for bringing a case where he couldn't secure a conviction.
1. I am not a trump fan. I am a Ron Disantis fan.
2. The common fold are angry, Thats why Trumps popularity has skyrocketed since these bogus charges started to pop up all over the place.
No, she wasn't murdered. She was shot by law enforcement as she breached a barricade protecting a bunch of politicians.So the girl that was killed was not murdered? Tell that to her family!
lolI find this implausible.
CNN doesn't decide guilt. Juries do, and it did.
No I got point. It was a bad point, but I got it.
Convicted by a jury under the watch of a judge.
People try, but her mother is nuts.
THe riots existence do not inform the truth of the event that sparked them. They have no bearing on Chauvin's guilt. They are not evidence for or against him.
Which you clearly demonstrate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?