Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 16 hours ago, Yellowtail said: Yet the FEC looked at it and refused to prosecute. FEC declined to prosecute because the crime was being prosecuted elsewhere. FEC did say that these were criminal violations. But you forgot that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 On 5/6/2024 at 7:02 AM, thaibeachlovers said: Prove that I do that or you are making it up, again. You are doing a great job of demonstrating your trolling by making unsubstantiated claims. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Trump attorney Todd Blanche, in his opening statement, declared that Michael Cohen was not reimbursed for his Stormy Daniels payment. Today, the Michael Cohen reimbursement was discussed in court at great length by Trump Organization accountants. Game, set, match. Trump is clearly guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 17 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: Trump attorney Todd Blanche, in his opening statement, declared that Michael Cohen was not reimbursed for his Stormy Daniels payment. In a short, 30-minute opening statement, Blanche offered several lines of defense for the former president. First, Blanche disputed a core claim underlying the prosecution’s case: that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the hush money payment to Daniels. Checks that Trump cut to Cohen in 2017 were actually for legitimate legal services Cohen provided, Blanche said. “He was President Trump’s personal attorney. You will see documents, you will see emails,” Blanche told jurors. “His signature block in 2017 said, ‘Michael Cohen, personal attorney to President Trump.’” https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/22/trump-trial-opening-statements-takeaways-00153719 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) 32 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said: In a short, 30-minute opening statement, Blanche offered several lines of defense for the former president. First, Blanche disputed a core claim underlying the prosecution’s case: that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the hush money payment to Daniels. Checks that Trump cut to Cohen in 2017 were actually for legitimate legal services Cohen provided, Blanche said. “He was President Trump’s personal attorney. You will see documents, you will see emails,” Blanche told jurors. “His signature block in 2017 said, ‘Michael Cohen, personal attorney to President Trump.’” https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/22/trump-trial-opening-statements-takeaways-00153719 Today's testimony and exhibits disproved Blanche's argument. The Trump Organization doubled Cohen's reimbursement precisely because his payment to Stormy Daniels wasn't a legal fee. Edited May 7 by Danderman123 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 hour ago, Danderman123 said: Today's testimony was about how Cohen was reimbursed for his $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. Among the exhibits were the notes from Trump's accountants illustrating how they had to effectively double the amount so that Cohen would get his $130,000 back - because of the taxes he would have to pay for his "legal services". If they had decided to call it payment of a campaign loan, they could have just paid him $130,000. This is clearly business fraud. Only if the jury agrees with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 It's all smoke and mirrors anyway. Court cases just make Trump more popular and guilty verdicts don't stop him being on the ballot. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, Danderman123 said: This is clearly business fraud. NY Penal Law § 170.10: Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/nyregion/trump-trial-gag-order-hush-money.html Both phases of the case, the captivating sleaze and the stultifying records, are essential to proving the charges. New York law requires prosecutors to show that Mr. Trump falsified the records to conceal another crime, in this case, what the prosecution says was a conspiracy to influence the election by concealing damaging stories from voters. * § 17–152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlaw- ful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (L.1976, c. 233 , § 1.) * Edited May 7 by jerrymahoney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: It's all smoke and mirrors anyway. Court cases just make Trump more popular and guilty verdicts don't stop him being on the ballot. Because you idolize Trump, it seems that way to you. For a lot of independent voters, a felony conviction is disqualifying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 Just now, Danderman123 said: Because you idolize Trump, it seems that way to you. For a lot of independent voters, a felony conviction is disqualifying. and then they can vote against him, can't they? Stop lying so much. Your nose will grow till you can't leave the room. I don't "idolise" Trump, but the other guy is just too bad to tolerate a moment longer than we have to put up with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 51 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said: and then they can vote against him, can't they? Stop lying so much. Your nose will grow till you can't leave the room. I don't "idolise" Trump, but the other guy is just too bad to tolerate a moment longer than we have to put up with him. This topic has nothing to do with Biden, but you live here defending Trump. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 After Trump won the 2016 election, he made a show of declaring that he would have no further role in the Trump Organization. Today's testimony demonstrates that he continued to manage the Trump Organization, even from the Oval Office. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post thaibeachlovers Posted May 7 Popular Post Share Posted May 7 2 hours ago, Danderman123 said: This topic has nothing to do with Biden, but you live here defending Trump. You joker you. IMO you excel at mentioning Trump in threads that have nothing to do with him. I'm not really defending Trump, but he's all we have to defeat Biden so we need to support Trump against the BS. The thought of president Harris freaks me out. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 4 hours ago, Danderman123 said: You are doing a great job of demonstrating your trolling by making unsubstantiated claims. As you haven't proven it, your deflection does not mean that you didn't make it up. Unlike you I post links if I post a fact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 7 hours ago, Danderman123 said: Today's testimony was about how Cohen was reimbursed for his $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. Among the exhibits were the notes from Trump's accountants illustrating how they had to effectively double the amount so that Cohen would get his $130,000 back - because of the taxes he would have to pay for his "legal services". If they had decided to call it payment of a campaign loan, they could have just paid him $130,000. This is clearly business fraud. Grossing up a reimbursement to cover taxes is fraud? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 7 hours ago, Danderman123 said: FEC declined to prosecute because the crime was being prosecuted elsewhere. Four years ago? Where else was he being prosecuted? 7 hours ago, Danderman123 said: FEC did say that these were criminal violations. But you forgot that. Yet the FEC declined to prosecute him, even though the FEC is the only division with jurisdiction to prosecute federal election crimes. But you pretended to forget that. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: Four years ago? Where else was he being prosecuted? Yet the FEC declined to prosecute him, even though the FEC is the only division with jurisdiction to prosecute federal election crimes. But you pretended to forget that. Your memory is terrible. And you have lost the plot. However, because he was criminally prosecuted for the same conduct at issue in these matters, we did not support authorizing an investigation into the allegations against Cohen. Your reaction to this is going to result in a string of comments in which you are going to try to troll enough to exonerate Trump. The Cohen payment to Stormy Daniels is the underlying crime that Trump was covering up. FEC declined to prosecute Cohen due to the Federal prosecution. I'm sure you are going to repeat your assertions again after you forget this round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: Grossing up a reimbursement to cover taxes is fraud? Wow. You don't understand any of this. Are you really going to play stupid about this fraud? Tell you what, if you really don't understand this, I will explain it to you, but almost everyone else understands the fraud, and you displaying ignorance won't convince anyone else. Edited May 7 by Danderman123 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 25 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: Grossing up a reimbursement to cover taxes is fraud? What reason is there to "gross up" an invoice for legal services? You ever pay for legal services? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said: As you haven't proven it, your deflection does not mean that you didn't make it up. Unlike you I post links if I post a fact. This is the statement you are whining about: "For a lot of independent voters, a felony conviction is disqualifying." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/conviction-cost-trump-key-votes-polls-show-trial/story?id=109749253 Many polls show independent voters will react negatively to a Trump conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 hour ago, Danderman123 said: Your memory is terrible. And you have lost the plot. However, because he was criminally prosecuted for the same conduct at issue in these matters, we did not support authorizing an investigation into the allegations against Cohen. Your reaction to this is going to result in a string of comments in which you are going to try to troll enough to exonerate Trump. The Cohen payment to Stormy Daniels is the underlying crime that Trump was covering up. FEC declined to prosecute Cohen due to the Federal prosecution. I'm sure you are going to repeat your assertions again after you forget this round. You stated: "FEC declined to prosecute because the crime was being prosecuted elsewhere." Nowhere in the document does it say that the FEC declined to prosecute because the crime was being prosecuted elsewhere. You made that part up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 minute ago, Yellowtail said: You stated: "FEC declined to prosecute because the crime was being prosecuted elsewhere." Nowhere in the document does it say that the FEC declined to prosecute because the crime was being prosecuted elsewhere. You made that part up. I quoted the FEC document. Maybe you have had a stroke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 57 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: What reason is there to "gross up" an invoice for legal services? Again, it was reimbursement for legal expenses, not for legal services or fees. Grossing-up payments to cover taxes is a common practice. 57 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: You ever pay for legal services? Every month from early 2000 until I retired a few months ago. You? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: I quoted the FEC document. Maybe you have had a stroke. Your "quote" was in regard to Cohen, not Trump. You made up the Trump part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 1 hour ago, Danderman123 said: This is the statement you are whining about: "For a lot of independent voters, a felony conviction is disqualifying." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/conviction-cost-trump-key-votes-polls-show-trial/story?id=109749253 Many polls show independent voters will react negatively to a Trump conviction. That is the only reason hi is on trial. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: Again, it was reimbursement for legal expenses, not for legal services or fees. A distinction without a difference. The lawyer bills for legal services. The customer pays for those legal services and considers them legal expenses. Same same. I can't believe that you are trolling over this. The point is that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels and claimed the money was for legal services. Are you disputing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: Grossing-up payments to cover taxes is a common practice. Is that a confession for something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: That is the only reason hi is on trial. Trump is on trial for business fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: Your "quote" was in regard to Cohen, not Trump. You made up the Trump part. You misread my post, sorry. Trump covered up Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels - both FEC and the Feds considered Cohen's payment to be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted May 7 Share Posted May 7 9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: A distinction without a difference. The lawyer bills for legal services. The customer pays for those legal services and considers them legal expenses. Same same. I can't believe that you are trolling over this. The point is that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels and claimed the money was for legal services. Are you disputing that? No, legal fees and services are not the same as legal expenses. I thought you owned a number of businesses, or did you make that up too? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now