McConney Witness Explains Donald's Hush Money Payments (1 Viewer)

[Lutherf]

Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records, a class E felony. Trump was charged with a felony because prosecutors accused him of falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime connected to his 2016 campaign.

Right. What testimony have we heard so far related to that "other crime"? He didn't falsify anything by paying a lawyer to do legal work UNLESS the payments weren't really payments for legal work and so far we HAVE heard testimony that Cohen was negotiating and executing an NDA which IS legal work.

 

[Callen]

I think it's being made pretty clear that entry was fraudulent in that it was from his personal account, recorded as a business legal expense but given to Stormy to shut her up in advance of the election. However, this witness has not linked Trump directly to all those actions from a bookkeeping perspective....that's a problem from the prosecution so far given the charge is a bookkeeping charge.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Clinton never paid off his skanks. He had his wife and political machine destroy their lives.

Hmm…

Clinton pays Paula Jones $850,000

WASHINGTON (AP) - Paula Jones is awaiting the arrival of an $850,000 cheque from President Clinton, bringing an official end to the four-year saga spurred by her allegations of sexual harassment.

www.theguardian.com

CLINTON PAYS ANOTHER 91G IN JONES CASE

Closing another chapter in the Paula Jones case, President Clinton has paid the legal debt imposed on him for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Papers filed in Arkansas federal court sho…

nypost.com

 

[Lutherf]

Some reading that may help you understand the case. Don;pt let the word "facts scare you off.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Cohen took the plea and copped to "campaign fraud" because it got him a sweetheart deal on the taxi medallion and tax schemes that were the REAL crime. Cohen's plea DOES NOT make the payments, legally, campaign contributions. That aspect of the case was never litigated and it appears that Bragg is trying to say that the plea does exactly that.

 

[Callen]

Right. What testimony have we heard so far related to that "other crime"? He didn't falsify anything by paying a lawyer to do legal work UNLESS the payments weren't really payments for legal work and so far we HAVE heard testimony that Cohen was negotiating and executing an NDA which IS legal work.

Not quite right.

The 130K was the hush money paid directly to Stormy.....this was booked as legal fees.
The 180K was the legal fees to Cohen to deal with Stormy could be argued as legal fees but Trump never claimed them as such

 

[jnug]

Cohen took the plea and copped to "campaign fraud" because it got him a sweetheart deal on the taxi medallion and tax schemes that were the REAL crime. Cohen's plea DOES NOT make the payments, legally, campaign contributions. That aspect of the case was never litigated and it appears that Bragg is trying to say that the plea does exactly that.

No shit Sherlock. This is part of the problem of having nitwit talking head media legal beagles comment on the blow by blow in a courtroom.

There is nothing worth seeing here beyond sheer entertainment and there won't be till Summation.

 

[Lutherf]

I think it's being made pretty clear that entry was fraudulent in that it was from his personal account, recorded as a business legal expense but given to Stormy to shut her up in advance of the election. However, this witness has not linked Trump directly to all those actions from a bookkeeping perspective....that's a problem from the prosecution so far given the charge is a bookkeeping charge.

Paying for business stuff from a personal account IS NOT illegal and it happens all the time.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Right. What testimony have we heard so far related to that "other crime"? He didn't falsify anything by paying a lawyer to do legal work UNLESS the payments weren't really payments for legal work and so far we HAVE heard testimony that Cohen was negotiating and executing an NDA which IS legal work.

Day 12 of Trump New York hush money trial

Former President Donald Trump's hush money trial continues in New York. Follow here for the latest live news updates, analysis and more.

www.cnn.com

Check it out all in real time.
The jurors are going over the documents now.
Trump is ****ed.

 

[Nickyjo]

Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records, a class E felony. Trump was charged with a felony because prosecutors accused him of falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime connected to his 2016 campaign.

Stop confusing them with the facts as alleged in this case. They prefer to think of it as lawfare.

 

[Callen]

Cohen took the plea and copped to "campaign fraud" because it got him a sweetheart deal on the taxi medallion and tax schemes that were the REAL crime. Cohen's plea DOES NOT make the payments, legally, campaign contributions. That aspect of the case was never litigated and it appears that Bragg is trying to say that the plea does exactly that.

The underlying crimes being claimed is not the illegal election contribution. Its NY Statue 17-152 Conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of a person.

Page 11 and 12 of this document may help you understand what the underlying crimes are.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Lutherf]

Not quite right.

The 130K was the hush money paid directly to Stormy.....this was booked as legal fees.
The 180K was the legal fees to Cohen to deal with Stormy could be argued as legal fees but Trump never claimed them as such

If your lawyer pays the $130k and you reimburse him for it then the whole nut is legal fees. Heck, according to today's testimony they even 1099'd Cohen for it.

Let's say that I need to buy a new piece of equipment for my business that will cost $100k. I don't have $100k or don't want to lay out $100k all at once so I call my brother and have him buy the equipment and give it to me and then I pay him back, plus consideration. Did I buy the equipment or not? Heck, maybe I swung that deal because my brother works for the manufacturer and gets an employee discount or can expedite deliver or get me some nifty upgrades. I'm STILL the one that ultimately bought the stuff and it's not a "coverup".

 

[Callen]

If your lawyer pays the $130k and you reimburse him for it then the whole nut is legal fees. Heck, according to today's testimony they even 1099'd Cohen for it.

Let's say that I need to buy a new piece of equipment for my business that will cost $100k. I don't have $100k or don't want to lay out $100k all at once so I call my brother and have him buy the equipment and give it to me and then I pay him back, plus consideration. Did I buy the equipment or not? Heck, maybe I swung that deal because my brother works for the manufacturer and gets an employee discount or can expedite deliver or get me some nifty upgrades. I'm STILL the one that ultimately bought the stuff and it's not a "coverup".

Get back to me when you read what I provided...the facts.

 

[Lutherf]

The underlying crimes being claimed is not the illegal election contribution. Its NY Statue 17-152 Conspiracy to promote or prevent the election of a person.

Page 11 and 12 of this document may help you understand what the underlying crimes are.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

NYEL 17-152

“Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-152

That statute has elements that must be met and one of those elements is "unlawful means". If the NDA isn't illegal then this CAN'T be the other illegal act that makes the payments to Cohen into felonies.

 

[eman623]

Some reading that may help you understand the case. Don;pt let the word "facts scare you off.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

I have a question for the guy who doesn't let facts scare him off.

The first sentence reads:

The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.

Explain how payments made from a personal account constitute "business records"

 

[NuffSaid]

Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records, a class E felony. Trump was charged with a felony because prosecutors accused him of falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal another crime connected to his 2016 campaign.

Clearly all the MAGA cult came in here with zero knowledge of the actual charges have no idea what's going on.
They all think (mimic, parrot, really) Trump making a payment is the "charge".
Talk about being clueless.

 

[Callen]

NYEL 17-152

That statute has elements that must be met and one of those elements is "unlawful means". If the NDA isn't illegal then this CAN'T be the other illegal act that makes the payments to Cohen into felonies.

The NDA is not the issue...the payment is.

 

[NuffSaid]

I have a question for the guy who doesn't let facts scare him off.

The first sentence reads:

The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.

Explain how payments made from a personal account constitute "business records"

You need to keep reading. The next paragraph answers your question:

2. From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.

 

[Callen]

Explain how payments made from a personal account constitute "business records"

The payments were from his personal accounts but logged in the business ledgers.

 

[Lutherf]

I have a question for the guy who doesn't let facts scare him off.

The first sentence reads:

The defendant DONALD J. TRUMP repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.

Explain how payments made from a personal account constitute "business records"

The prosecution case seems to be that if you first presume that an NDA is illegal then you can presume that it was used to influence a campaign and if anything that influences a campaign is illegal then the business entries are fake. It's a lot of presumption and not all that based in general principles of law but if you happen to get a judge that has a daughter that makes MILLIONS off bashing Trump then you're sure to not only get a hearing but also get some of the most absurd gag orders the world has ever seen.

The way I'm looking at this is that the whole prosecution is a violation of the law that Trump is being charged with.

 

[roguenuke]

Right. What testimony have we heard so far related to that "other crime"? He didn't falsify anything by paying a lawyer to do legal work UNLESS the payments weren't really payments for legal work and so far we HAVE heard testimony that Cohen was negotiating and executing an NDA which IS legal work.

He wasn't paying for legitimate legal work. That's the problem. He knew he was paying Cohen back for paying off someone to not tell about something he did, cheating on his wife with another woman, specifically so that it wouldn't come up during the campaign, right before the election, as that could harm him. It's like the reverse of paying for campaign ads. You pay to put out positive info about yourself as a candidate, that is a campaign expense. If someone else pays for that ad to be put out about you, that is considered a campaign contribution. If you pay someone not to tell some "dirty secret" about you during a campaign, that is still considered a "campaign expense" and if someone else does it for you, that is a campaign contribution, even if you pay it back later. Especially if you pay it back in a way to try to hide it, illegally.

 

[Lutherf]

The NDA is not the issue...the payment is.

Seriously? Find me even one NDA that doesn't have compensation attached to it.

 

[Callen]

The prosecution case seems to be that if you first presume that an NDA

Nowhere in any document. any argument or any testimony has the prosecution claimed the NDA was illegal....nowhere. If you know different show us the specifics.

 

[Callen]

Seriously? Find me even one NDA that doesn't have compensation attached to it.

The NDA is not the crime
The payment isn't the crime

The crime is falsification of business records in aid of covering up a conspiracy to illegally influence an election.

 

[eman623]

You need to keep reading. The next paragraph answers your question:

2. From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects. In order to execute the unlawful scheme, the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. The participants also took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in furtherance of the scheme.

Ok, thanks.

But it doesn't change my question. How is using a personal account to purchase negative information (which is not a crime) constitute falsifying business records?

 

[Lutherf]

He wasn't paying for legitimate legal work. That's the problem. He knew he was paying Cohen back for paying off someone to not tell about something he did, cheating on his wife with another woman, specifically so that it wouldn't come up during the campaign, right before the election, as that could harm him. It's like the reverse of paying for campaign ads. You pay to put out positive info about yourself as a candidate, that is a campaign expense. If someone else pays for that ad to be put out about you, that is considered a campaign contribution. If you pay someone not to tell some "dirty secret" about you during a campaign, that is still considered a "campaign expense" and if someone else does it for you, that is a campaign contribution, even if you pay it back later. Especially if you pay it back in a way to try to hide it, illegally.

It wasn't a campaign expense and it wasn't a campaign contribution. The payment would need to have been coordinated with, requested by or suggested by the campaign committee to be an "in kind" contribution. I can, for example, rent a billboard on the freeway that says "LutherF says Support Trump" and that wouldn't be a campaign contribution as long as I didn't involve the campaign committee in any way.