NY judge issues gag order on Trump in hush money trial

[Yellowtail]

9 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

You are all worked up about opposition research, which is standard for most campaigns.

 

Next you will get all hot and bothered over funding for voter registration.

 

Meanwhile, Trump is going on trial for hush money payments to a porn star and then misreporting these as Trump Organization business expenses.

 

 

Because there is/was nothing illegal or unusual about entering into an NDA, the only issue is that the payment was reported incorrectly. So,Trump is effectively on trial for a campaign finance violation, correct?

[Danderman123]

47 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

Because there is/was nothing illegal or unusual about entering into an NDA, the only issue is that the payment was reported incorrectly. So,Trump is effectively on trial for a campaign finance violation, correct?

The question is whether DA Bragg can prove there was an underlying crime. If so, that's 34 felony convictions for Trump.

 

It has been noted here that Michael Cohen has already been convicted of a crime for the Stormy Daniels payments. So, not exactly a campaign finance violation.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

"Published" after the election but it distributed, leaked and used long before that.

 

And of course it was all made up. 

The Steele Dossier was about 70% accurate.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier

 

You seem a bit confused about a lot of facts. I'll add this to the list.

Edited April 14 by Danderman123

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

The Steele Dossier was about 70% accurate.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier

 

You seem a bit confused about a lot of facts. I'll add this to the list.

Do you have any examples of things that were true? 

[Danderman123]

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have any examples of things that were true? 

From the link I posted:

 

Russian assistance to the Trump campaign

 

Its main assertion — that the Russian government was working to get Mr. Trump elected — was hardly an established fact when it was first laid out by Mr. Steele in June 2016. But it has since been backed up by the United States' own intelligence agencies — and Mr. Mueller's investigation. The dossier's talk of Russian efforts to cultivate some people in Mr. Trump's orbit was similarly unknown when first detailed in one of Mr. Steele's reports, but it has proved broadly accurate as well.

[Yellowtail]

7 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

From the link I posted:

 

Russian assistance to the Trump campaign

 

Its main assertion — that the Russian government was working to get Mr. Trump elected — was hardly an established fact when it was first laid out by Mr. Steele in June 2016. But it has since been backed up by the United States' own intelligence agencies — and Mr. Mueller's investigation. The dossier's talk of Russian efforts to cultivate some people in Mr. Trump's orbit was similarly unknown when first detailed in one of Mr. Steele's reports, but it has proved broadly accurate as well.

As I understand it, the Russians were attempting to sow chaos more than anything. But it is arguable, and Trump had nothing to do with it. It is also from a Wiki page which is makes it largely meaningless. 

 

Okay, so that was 1%, you said 70%. 

[Yellowtail]

From the link below: 

 

"Was the dossier a reliable source of information?

 

No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy.

No corroborating evidence has emerged in intervening years to support many of the specific claims in the dossier, and government investigators determined that one key allegation — that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met with Russian officials in Prague during the campaign — was false."
Discredited Steele Dossier Doesn't Undercut Russia Inquiry - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[candide]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

"Published" after the election but it distributed, leaked and used long before that.

 

And of course it was all made up. 

So not leaked to the public, right? So no influence on elections.....

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, candide said:

So not leaked to the public, right? So no influence on elections.....

It was leaked to the media a chunk at a time. all unsubstantiated yet the media ram with it, before the election. 

 

You can pretend otherwise, but that's all you can do is pretend. 

 

Just like you can pretend January 6th was an insurrection, Trump said there were good Nazis, Trump said servicement were suckers, Trump was convicted of rape, Trump mocked a handicapped  reporter, Trumps a racist, Trumps's a dictator, Trump's a misogynist, Trump's puppet for Putin, and on and on. 

 

 

[stevenl]

I hope he finally experiences the consequences of violating a gag order.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/13/trump-targets-two-likely-witnesses-ahead-of-his-criminal-trial-despite-gag-order.html

[candide]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

It was leaked to the media a chunk at a time. all unsubstantiated yet the media ram with it, before the election. 

 

You can pretend otherwise, but that's all you can do is pretend. 

 

Just like you can pretend January 6th was an insurrection, Trump said there were good Nazis, Trump said servicement were suckers, Trump was convicted of rape, Trump mocked a handicapped  reporter, Trumps a racist, Trumps's a dictator, Trump's a misogynist, Trump's puppet for Putin, and on and on. 

 

 

And as usual, you have evidence of these media leaks..... 😁

Edited April 14 by candide

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The question is whether DA Bragg can prove there was an underlying crime. If so, that's 34 felony convictions for Trump.

 

It has been noted here that Michael Cohen has already been convicted of a crime for the Stormy Daniels payments. So, not exactly a campaign finance violation.

Cohen was convicted of tax evasion, because between 2012 and 2016 he hid over $4 million in personal income to avoid paying over $1.3 million in income tax.

 

He also pled to complain finance violations, but that was a small part of the case against him. 

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

And as usual, you have evidence of these media leaks..... 😁

Are you claiming the dossier was not in the news prior to the election? That's hilarious. 

 

Timeline: How the Steele dossier was compiled - Washington Post

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

Because there is/was nothing illegal or unusual about entering into an NDA, the only issue is that the payment was reported incorrectly. So,Trump is effectively on trial for a campaign finance violation, correct?

It’s been explained to you multiple times that he’s on trial for fraud pursuant of election interference.

[GroveHillWanderer]

5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

The question is whether DA Bragg can prove there was an underlying crime. If so, that's 34 felony convictions for Trump.

 

It has been noted here that Michael Cohen has already been convicted of a crime for the Stormy Daniels payments. So, not exactly a campaign finance violation.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Cohen was found guilty (pursuant to a plea) of 8 criminal counts, and campaign finance violations were among them.

 

Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s been explained to you multiple times that he’s on trial for fraud pursuant of election interference.

So, basically the same as Clinton and the Steele dossier she was fined for then, except that she got a pass, and her campaign just paid a fine for election finance violations. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, basically the same as Clinton and the Steele dossier she was fined for then, except that she got a pass, and her campaign just paid a fine for election finance violations. 

No, not the same, since Clinton was never accused of, or charged with, committing 34 separate instances of business fraud in order to cover up for campaign finance violations.

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

No, not the same, since Clinton was never accused of, or charged with, committing 34 separate instances of business fraud in order to cover up for campaign finance violations.

Yet she was trying to cover up, and in my opinion it was much works than Trump reporting the payment as a business rather than a campaign expense.  

 

And "...34 separate instances of business fraud..." would be the same payment being shown 34 different times in the book, yes? 

 

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yet she was trying to cover up, and in my opinion it was much works than Trump reporting the payment as a business rather than a campaign expense.  

 

And "...34 separate instances of business fraud..." would be the same payment being shown 34 different times in the book, yes? 

No, 11 payments.

[GroveHillWanderer]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yet she was trying to cover up, and in my opinion it was much works than Trump reporting the payment as a business rather than a campaign expense.  

So if she was trying to cover it up in a way that was worse than Trump, please identify which business fraud or other criminal offences she committed in pursuit of such a cover up.

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

So if she was trying to cover it up in a way that was worse than Trump, please identify which business fraud or other criminal offences she committed in pursuit of such a cover up.

No, I do not think the coverup was worse, I think the Steele dossier was worse than the NDA with stormy. 

 

And Trump had plenty of reason to keep the incident private, aside from the campaign, yes? 

[Chomper Higgot]

57 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, basically the same as Clinton and the Steele dossier she was fined for then, except that she got a pass, and her campaign just paid a fine for election finance violations. 

More false equivalence.

 

Just admit you really don’t like Trump being held accountable to the law.

 

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Are you claiming the dossier was not in the news prior to the election? That's hilarious. 

 

Timeline: How the Steele dossier was compiled - Washington Post

Thank you for this useful timeline.

So MotherJones disclosed that Steele sent the reports to the FBI, reports being the result of an opposition research project. And also discloses some elements of it.

 

How does that support the false equivalence you are trying  to make between the Clinton campaign  and Trump's case?

[Yellowtail]

Just now, candide said:

Thank you for this useful timeline.

So MotherJones disclosed that Steele sent the reports to the FBI, reports being the result of an opposition research project. And also discloses some elements of it.

 

How does that support the false equivalence you are trying  to make between the Clinton campaign  and Trump's case?

Again, are you claiming the dossier was not in the news prior to the election?

[candide]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Again, are you claiming the dossier was not in the news prior to the election?

I just wrote how it was disclosed in MotherJones.

 

How does it support the false equivalence you are trying to make between Clinton's campaign and Trump's case?

 

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, candide said:

I just wrote how it was disclosed in MotherJones.

 

How does it support the false equivalence you are trying to make between Clinton's campaign and Trump's case?

 

Most all of it was reported on in most every media outlet in the country, but like I said, you can pretend all you like. 

 

I have not attempted to make a false equivalence, I think that what Clinton did with the dossier was much, much worse than Trump entering into an NDA with Stormy. 

 

[candide]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Most all of it was reported on in most every media outlet in the country, but like I said, you can pretend all you like. 

 

I have not attempted to make a false equivalence, I think that what Clinton did with the dossier was much, much worse than Trump entering into an NDA with Stormy. 

 

Why? Opposition research is legal.

 

PS if you are not trying to make a false equivalence (or a false 'worse' equivalence) then why introduce this subject in a thread which is not about Clinton's campaign?

Edited April 14 by candide

[stevenl]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Most all of it was reported on in most every media outlet in the country, but like I said, you can pretend all you like. 

 

I have not attempted to make a false equivalence, I think that what Clinton did with the dossier was much, much worse than Trump entering into an NDA with Stormy. 

 

"Trump entering into an NDA with Stormy. ".

Which is not the issue.

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"Trump entering into an NDA with Stormy. ".

Which is not the issue.

Exactly. Not reporting the payment as a campaign expense is the issue, correct? 

 

And it's easily argued that the payment had little to do with the election, correct? 

[candide]

58 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Exactly. Not reporting the payment as a campaign expense is the issue, correct? 

 

And it's easily argued that the payment had little to do with the election, correct? 

It has already been established in Cohen's trial that it was considered as a campaign expense (for the part of its conviction which was about it). So it can easily be argued that it has to do with the election.