Michael Cohen Takes Center Stage in Trump's Hush Money Trial

[jerrymahoney]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

My point was that the payment to Ms. Daniels was related to the election, as shown by the urgency expressed by Trump's mooks after the release of the Access Hollywood tape.

 

Your post was unresponsive and basically just noise. Did you join the Trump Defense team?

I said she first showed up in 2011 when Trump was not running for office.

[Danderman123]

8 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I said she first showed up in 2011 when Trump was not running for office.

Trump didn't bother to buy her story in 2011, he waited until the election was imminent.

 

Thanks for the assist.

[jerrymahoney]

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump didn't bother to buy her story in 2011, he waited until the election was imminent.

 

Thanks for the assist.

Yes so you can't say the only reason Stormy came forward was because of the election because she already did.

 

And the Judge is reviewing the FEC "Irrespective" notion this weekend and the extent that Brad Smith can address it or prosecution rebuttal can address it.

Edited May 19 by jerrymahoney

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump didn't bother to buy her story in 2011, he waited until the election was imminent.

 

Thanks for the assist.

I understand this is a waste of time, but the payment benefits Trump, with or without the election. 

 

The focus of campaign finance law, as I understand it, is to prevent candidates from spending campaign donations on things that may benefit the candidate, even without the campaign. You can't buy a new suit for a debate, and call it a campaign expense, even if the only time you ever wear it is for the debate. 

[stevenl]

"Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, says it’s a stretch to say the payoffs were aimed solely at influencing the election.

 

Writing in the National Review this week, Smith said Trump had valid, personal reasons to hide the alleged affairs from public view. Among them: protecting his family from scandal and preserving his viability as a TV personality had he lost the election."

 

His opinion that there could have been other reasons is not related to the argument it is a potential violation. Up to the prosecution to show the intention of the payoffs.

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump didn't bother to buy her story in 2011, he waited until the election was imminent.

 

Thanks for the assist.

Why he paid her makes no difference.

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, says it’s a stretch to say the payoffs were aimed solely at influencing the election.

 

Writing in the National Review this week, Smith said Trump had valid, personal reasons to hide the alleged affairs from public view. Among them: protecting his family from scandal and preserving his viability as a TV personality had he lost the election."

 

His opinion that there could have been other reasons is not related to the argument it is a potential violation. Up to the prosecution to show the intention of the payoffs.

What is that based on? 

[candide]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I understand this is a waste of time, but the payment benefits Trump, with or without the election. 

 

The focus of campaign finance law, as I understand it, is to prevent candidates from spending campaign donations on things that may benefit the candidate, even without the campaign. You can't buy a new suit for a debate, and call it a campaign expense, even if the only time you ever wear it is for the debate. 

How does the fact that the RNC paid Trump's personal legal expenses fit this interpretation?

[Danderman123]

17 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Yes so you can't say the only reason Stormy came forward was because of the election because she already did.

 

And the Judge is reviewing the FEC "Irrespective" notion this weekend and the extent that Brad Smith can address it or prosecution rebuttal can address it.

I am saying that Trump's motivation for paying her was the imminent election.

[jerrymahoney]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

I am saying that Trump's motivation for paying her was the imminent election.

That has no bearing on determining that Irrespective condition.

[Danderman123]

15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I understand this is a waste of time, but the payment benefits Trump, with or without the election. 

 

So, why the urgency to pay Stormy Daniels after the release of the Access Hollywood tape?

[jerrymahoney]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

So, why the urgency to pay Stormy Daniels after the release of the Access Hollywood tape?

I'll say it again: The timing has no bearing on the issue.

[Danderman123]

4 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

That has no bearing on determining that Irrespective condition.

If the jury is not smart enough to see that Team Trump urgently wanted to pay Stormy Daniels because of the imminent election, Trump will be acquitted.

[jerrymahoney]

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

If the jury is not smart enough to see that Team Trump urgently wanted to pay Stormy Daniels because of the imminent election, Trump will be acquitted.

There are plenty enough otherwise left-leaning legal scholars who say that this case should have never been brought in the first place.

[Yellowtail]

55 minutes ago, candide said:

How does the fact that the RNC paid Trump's personal legal expenses fit this interpretation?

The RNC can pay whatever the like. 

[Yellowtail]

44 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

If the jury is not smart enough to see that Team Trump urgently wanted to pay Stormy Daniels because of the imminent election, Trump will be acquitted.

It does not matter why Trump paid her. If he can benefit from the payment even without the election, the payment does not qualify as a campaign expense. 

 

This is why I have been saying that had Trump charged the payment as a campaign expense, the FEC would have charged him for it, and he would have been fined. 

 

 

 

[Danderman123]

The MAGA theory is that the campaign finance violation that Michael Cohen pled guilty to was not a campaign finance violation?

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The MAGA theory is that the campaign finance violation that Michael Cohen pled guilty to was not a campaign finance violation?

Correct. Cohen was convicted of tax evasion and was looking at a possible sixty years. He plead guilty to the additional campaign finance violations for a reduced sentence and to help get Trump. 

 

We've been over this countless times. 

[Danderman123]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Correct. Cohen was convicted of tax evasion and was looking at a possible sixty years. He plead guilty to the additional campaign finance violations for a reduced sentence and to help get Trump. 

 

We've been over this countless times. 

How did he plead guilty to a campaign finance violation if there was no campaign finance violation?

[jerrymahoney]

The indictment lists 34 charges of 175.10. 175.10 presumes 175.05 which states:

 

§ 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the second degree
when, with intent to defraud, he:

 

1. Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an
enterprise; or ...

 

This is from the May 16 conference Bove, Colangelo, and Judge Merchan

 

Bove: Next, I mentioned " The Irrespective Rule," which is set out in the FEC's regulations and cited, I think, by both parties in their request to charge .

 

And so, we seek to his have Mr. Smith discuss that (Irrespective) rule, and discuss the focus on whether an expense would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign , which we think is an important issue for the jury to consider with respect to whether the payments at issue could be considered expenditures and /or contributions.

 

(my italics)

 

Edited May 19 by jerrymahoney

[Skipalongcassidy]

9 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

How did he plead guilty to a campaign finance violation if there was no campaign finance violation?

No matter what your mommy told you there is such a thing as a stupid question... you just proved it.   

[Yagoda]

So the big question for next week. Will Costello testify? 

[earlinclaifornia]

7 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

So the big question for next week. Will Costello testify? 

Don't talk, just do it Swear him in. What are the lawyers waiting for?

Edited May 20 by earlinclaifornia

[Yagoda]

15 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Don't talk, just do it Swear him in. What are the lawyers waiting for?

What. You want him to testify? LOL

[earlinclaifornia]

2 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

What. You want him to testify? LOL

The truth has never ever scared me. Walk the walk, not talk the talk!

[Yagoda]

5 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

The truth has never ever scared me. Walk the walk, not talk the talk!

Wow. Did you tale half of the red pill then? Is that after reviewing Mikey Wormtongues testimoney, and reading the expert commentary outside the Trumpophobe echo chamber, you are hedging your bets?

 

You do know that Costellos allegation that Braggs office suborned perjury will come up? Thats going to be ugly.

[earlinclaifornia]

13 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Wow. Did you tale half of the red pill then? Is that after reviewing Mikey Wormtongues testimoney, and reading the expert commentary outside the Trumpophobe echo chamber, you are hedging your bets?

 

You do know that Costellos allegation that Braggs office suborned perjury will come up? Thats going to be ugly.

Under oath has always worked

[Danderman123]

Trump said he would testify.

[earlinclaifornia]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

Trump said he would testify.

just now or today?

 

[Walker88]

The ranks of the Cult keep growing, as more and more Repubs are heading up to NY on the US Taxpayer's dime to audition for the #2 slot. Nobody wants to get voted off Veepstakes Island, so they are sucking up like a black hole swallowing nearby stars.

 

The latest sycophant to toss his lack of pride into the ring is Marco Rubio, or Little Marco as his possible boss calls him. Rubio declined to say he would accept the results of the upcoming election if his guy lost. So, add Rubio to the traitors against US ideals and founding principles. (Is it too late to send him back to Cuba, as he now seems to prefer Fidel-style rulers?)

 

Unsaid in all of the sucking up is that they are all really after the Presidency. It is not going too far out on a limb to guess their fearful leader will be dead in 4 years, so whoever is in the VP slot not only completes the term, but gets to run in 2028 as the incumbent. In fact, one could say they are all counting on their guy to win, and then please die.