Why the hush money case against Donald Trump is on shaky ground

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Right after you support your that Trump's accountants labeled payments to Cohen for his legal services, and not expense reimbursement, or admit you made it up. 

 

 

Apparently, that's your way of admitting that you don't know why an attorney's invoice should be grossed up.

 

Because there is no reason to gross up an attorney's invoice, unless there is some hanky panky going on. 

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You do understand that this is what the trial is about, right?

 

Let me demonstrate how little you know about this case by giving you the information you lack:

 

McConney said he later asked Cohen for invoices so he could begin paying him. Cohen sent him an email that said, "Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for the months of January and February, 2017," each for $35,000.

So now you are claiming there was no invoice? 

 

Again, do you even read what you link to? From your link: 

 

"Former Trump Organization controller Jeff McConney testified that he was told Trump was reimbursing his then-lawyer Michael Cohen $130,000 but that he didn't know what exactly the repayment was for. McConney said neither his immediate supervisor, then-chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, nor Trump told him what the payments were for." 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Apparently, that's your way of admitting that you don't know why an attorney's invoice should be grossed up.

 

Because there is no reason to gross up an attorney's invoice, unless there is some hanky panky going on. 

Wrong, After you support your claim that Trump's accountants labeled payments to Cohen for his legal services, and not expense reimbursement, or admit you made it up. 

 

Your own link said he was reimbursing him. 

[frank83628]

On 5/4/2024 at 7:27 AM, Walker88 said:

The prosecution is playing this very well. trumpers will come up with some harebrained excuse of why it's meaningless, or their messiah is more infallible than the original Pope (trump makes the Borgia Pope seem infallible), but here's what the prosecution did today:

 

With the Hicks testimony they tried to prove intent, but solidified it with actual trump Tweets from the time between the Access Hollywood tape and the election. Hicks had messaged "Deny Deny Deny" about the various allegations. In her conversation with trump, she said trump told her he was worried about how the tape would hurt his chances with women in the election. Then the news about Stormy came out, and trump Tweeted about "Can you believe I lost a large number of women voters because of made-up events that never happened".  On Oct 17, 2016 trump also Tweeted about the "fake stories are having impact [on voters]".

 

Thus, even if Hicks testified that one concern was how it would impact trump's 3rd wife, she also testified that trump was concerned about how it would hurt his support at the polls among women. His Tweets back up that concern.

 

This then ties back to why trump is charged with a felony, rather than a mere misdemeanor, as in NY State Law it is illegal to use fraudulent means in order to influence an election (in the indictment, if one needs the statute). Prosecution need not prove that worrying about the negative news impacting the election is the only concern, but rather that it simply was a concern.

 

While trump is still claiming he never had an affair with either Stormy or McDougal, their testimony is still to come, and if the jury believes both witnesses (plus trump's bodyguard who regularly delivered McDougal to trump's various hotel rooms), then trump has zero credibility. The jury will believe trump is a liar. The testimonies and trump's own Tweets hang him, as it would meet the requirements (intent to influence an election through fraudulent means) of NY State to reach the level of felony.

 

There is an interesting interview on "Deadline: White House" with Sarah Matthews, the deputy Press Secretary in the last 7 months of trump's term, where she states, "Yes, it's just obvious, though, that donald trump is a pathological liar". She speaks of the various lies trump told her, such as when initially "anonymous sources" said trump referred to fallen US soldiers as "suckers and losers", but she later learned one source was Chief of Staff Gen Kelly (who lost a son in Iraq), and that Kelly "has gone on record saying trump said that to him". While not germane to trump's current hush money trial, it paints a picture---as if any rational person needs one---that trump is pure sleazeball scum.

 

 

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house

 

so glad i can scroill passed you rambling essays, i pity those who are in your company and have to endure such waffle. have you got any stories of when you were involved in a cia coups... could be any of them, lets face it, a fictional account of your 'cia' days will be far more entertaining than anything you've written on these latest Trumpo threads😎

[Danderman123]

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So now you are claiming there was no invoice? 

 

Again, do you even read what you link to? From your link: 

 

"Former Trump Organization controller Jeff McConney testified that he was told Trump was reimbursing his then-lawyer Michael Cohen $130,000 but that he didn't know what exactly the repayment was for. McConney said neither his immediate supervisor, then-chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, nor Trump told him what the payments were for." 

 

 

I am sorry for your memory problems. Or perhaps you think you can help Trump by this weird trolling.

 

But, the invoice was fake because Cohen never provided any legal services. Do you understand that?

 

Or are you really not understanding any of this case?

[Danderman123]

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Wrong, After you support your claim that Trump's accountants labeled payments to Cohen for his legal services, and not expense reimbursement, or admit you made it up. 

 

Your own link said he was reimbursing him. 

Reimbursement for his payment to Stormy Daniels, not for legal services.

 

I can't believe you don't remember any of this.

 

I would write yet another summary of the case, but you would forget it tomorrow.

[TorquayFan]

Its sad to see, (for me), a clear thread disappear into a sort of oblivion.

 

Going back to the point of the thread, it looks to me, that the case is not on 'shaky ground' at all but is rather 'cast iron'.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

15 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I am sorry for your memory problems. Or perhaps you think you can help Trump by this weird trolling.

 

But, the invoice was fake because Cohen never provided any legal services. Do you understand that?

 

Or are you really not understanding any of this case?

So now you are claiming there was a fake invoice, but your link indicated there was no invoice, which is it? 

 

Again, do you even read what you link to? From your link: 

 

"Former Trump Organization controller Jeff McConney testified that he was told Trump was reimbursing his then-lawyer Michael Cohen $130,000 but that he didn't know what exactly the repayment was for. McConney said neither his immediate supervisor, then-chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, nor Trump told him what the payments were for." 

 

As I said, it was grossed up because it was an expense Cohen incurred on Trump's behalf, that he was being reimbursed for.

 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

So now you are claiming there was a fake invoice, but your link indicated there was no invoice, which is it? 

 

Again, do you even read what you link to? From your link: 

 

"Former Trump Organization controller Jeff McConney testified that he was told Trump was reimbursing his then-lawyer Michael Cohen $130,000 but that he didn't know what exactly the repayment was for. McConney said neither his immediate supervisor, then-chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, nor Trump told him what the payments were for." 

 

As I said, it was grossed up because it was an expense Cohen incurred on Trump's behalf, that he was being reimbursed for.

 

I understand that this case is very confusing for you.

 

Unfortunately, there is no benefit to forum members to having me walk you through the case. And you would just forget the next day.

 

Trump has clearly committed business fraud to cover up a payment in support of his campaign that was never reported. Barring a holdout juror, Trump will be convicted. The question is whether the judge will allow a verdict of a misdemeanor rather than a felony.

[jerrymahoney]

5 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump has clearly committed business fraud to cover up a payment in support of his campaign that was never reported

In (his) opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed, “It was election fraud, pure and simple.

 

If the Prosecution used the word "fraud", they were using it in the layman's sense, not a legal sense.

Edited May 10 by jerrymahoney

[Chomper Higgot]

Weisselberg, a $750,000 bung got mentioned in court right at the end of Friday’s session.

 

Defendant Trump’s lawyers let out out a  bit of a tell with their objections as the Judged declared he’ll spend at least some of the weekend considering hauling Weisselberg in for a chat.

 

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/10/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/weisselberg-in-court-00157368

  

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

In (his) opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed, “It was election fraud, pure and simple.

 

If the Prosecution used the word "fraud", they were using it in the layman's sense, not a legal sense.

Isn't every politician attempting to "influence an election" when they trot out their lies about how much they care for each and every one of us, and how they are going to make it so much better in the future?

 

I'd like to see several politicians in court for false advertising.

[jerrymahoney]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Isn't every politician attempting to "influence an election" when they trot out their lies about how much they care for each and every one of us, and how they are going to make it so much better in the future?

 

I'd like to see several politicians in court for false advertising.

The statute at issue doesn't contain the word influence although that is a reasonable description.

 

Even so, it specifies influence by ILLEGAL MEANS but the prosecution has not hinted as yet what are the illegal means and the statute itself has little or zero case history as to what has been illegal means in prior case history.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

The statute at issue doesn't contain the word influence although that is a reasonable description.

 

Even so, it specifies influence by ILLEGAL MEANS but the prosecution has not hinted as yet what are the illegal means and the statute itself has little or zero case history as to what has been illegal means in prior case history.

Given my opinion that all the 91 or something cases against Trump were cobbled together after Trump decided to run again, it's not surprising to me that they are rubbish have problems.

[jerrymahoney]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given my opinion that all the 91 or something cases against Trump were cobbled together after Trump decided to run again, it's not surprising to me that they are rubbish have problems.

This is from what otherwise is a generally pro-prosecution article:

 

Maybe clear as mud?

 

Bragg’s legal theory is genuinely tangled—though the district attorney’s office is doing its best to untangle matters. Whether he’ll be able to walk the jury through it is no certainty.

[TorquayFan]

Danderman re. yours - "The question is whether the judge will allow a verdict of a misdemeanor rather than a felony."

 

My understanding is that IF the misdemeanours were part of a 'hush up' because of the election then they become felonies.

 

The evidence that Trump and the GOP wanted to keep the Stormy story from the electorate is overwhelming.

 

Cohen is testifying next week and that should provide damning confirmation.

 

As you say, only an errant Juror can save Trump from conviction . . . . .

 

AIMHO

[Hanaguma]

30 minutes ago, TorquayFan said:

Danderman re. yours - "The question is whether the judge will allow a verdict of a misdemeanor rather than a felony."

 

My understanding is that IF the misdemeanours were part of a 'hush up' because of the election then they become felonies.

 

The evidence that Trump and the GOP wanted to keep the Stormy story from the electorate is overwhelming.

 

Cohen is testifying next week and that should provide damning confirmation.

 

As you say, only an errant Juror can save Trump from conviction . . . . .

 

AIMHO

It is also plausible that Trump wanted to keep the strumpet away from his family, his business, and his reputation.  The payment could have been for any of these very realistic situations as well, and just happened to occur during the election cycle. Stormy chose to come forward and put her hand out because she thought she could get max dollars due to the election.

[Danderman123]

6 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

In (his) opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed, “It was election fraud, pure and simple.

 

If the Prosecution used the word "fraud", they were using it in the layman's sense, not a legal sense.

I was referring to the labeling of Cohen's payment as "legal services" rather than reimbursement for Stormy Daniels as the business fraud.

 

In a layman's sense.

 

 

[Danderman123]

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It is also plausible that Trump wanted to keep the strumpet away from his family, his business, and his reputation.  The payment could have been for any of these very realistic situations as well, and just happened to occur during the election cycle. Stormy chose to come forward and put her hand out because she thought she could get max dollars due to the election.

Why the big rush to pay her before the election?

 

Why didn't he tell her to keep quiet back in 2006?

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given my opinion that all the 91 or something cases against Trump were cobbled together after Trump decided to run again, it's not surprising to me that they are rubbish have problems.

Actually, no.

 

Trump only declared his candidacy after the news broke that he was being investigated.

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

Why the big rush to pay her before the election?

 

Why didn't he tell her to keep quiet back in 2006?

She was paid before the election because that is when she demanded to be paid. 

As for 2006, she was hoping to get some career favors from Trump for sleeping with him. Plus he was probably just another rich guy she had banged, no big deal.  But when he became a presidential candidate she realized that she could make money from telling her story. 

[jerrymahoney]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I was referring to the labeling of Cohen's payment as "legal services" rather than reimbursement for Stormy Daniels as the business fraud.

 

In a layman's sense.

 

 

You also said a few days ago following the accountants' discusiion: Game set & match.

 

I guess that was in layman's sense as well.

[Danderman123]

20 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

She was paid before the election because that is when she demanded to be paid. 

 

So Trump could have paid her after the election. What was the big rush?

[Hanaguma]

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

So Trump could have paid her after the election. What was the big rush?

The threat of her blabbing? When you are being more or less blackmailed (legally) it is best to get it taken care of. Plus, do you think she would have agreed to an NDA and also agreed to not get paid immediately?  That defies logic.

[earlinclaifornia]

14 hours ago, frank83628 said:

so glad i can scroill passed you rambling essays, i pity those who are in your company and have to endure such waffle. have you got any stories of when you were involved in a cia coups... could be any of them, lets face it, a fictional account of your 'cia' days will be far more entertaining than anything you've written on these latest Trumpo threads😎

Yes reading can be a challenge for some. If only you had managed to finished school, you could have maybe convinced Trump University to let you in.

[Danderman123]

23 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The threat of her blabbing? When you are being more or less blackmailed (legally) it is best to get it taken care of. Plus, do you think she would have agreed to an NDA and also agreed to not get paid immediately?  That defies logic.

Why didn't Trump care when the story came out after the election?

[Danderman123]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Isn't every politician attempting to "influence an election" when they trot out their lies about how much they care for each and every one of us, and how they are going to make it so much better in the future?

 

I'd like to see several politicians in court for false advertising.

You are correct.

 

But this case centers on unreported campaign finances, not campaign rhetoric.

[Hanaguma]

34 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Why didn't Trump care when the story came out after the election?

What makes you think he didnt?  You are quite into mind reading it seems. 

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said:

You also said a few days ago following the accountants' discusiion: Game set & match.

 

I guess that was in layman's sense as well.

Yes, the accountants provided key testimony. The remaining testimony is not that significant.

[Danderman123]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Weisselberg, a $750,000 bung got mentioned in court right at the end of Friday’s session.

 

Defendant Trump’s lawyers let out out a  bit of a tell with their objections as the Judged declared he’ll spend at least some of the weekend considering hauling Weisselberg in for a chat.

 

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/10/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/weisselberg-in-court-00157368

  

Hey Trump fans:

 

Why isn't Trump calling Weisellberg as a witness?