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

[Danderman123]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

What is it you think Trump is guilty of in this case? 

 

Do you think he was aware of any potential campaign finance violation? 

Groundhog Day Trolling.

[Danderman123]

Why didn't Trump simply have the Trump campaign pay Stormy Daniels?

 

Why go through all the effort of fake invoices and reimbursement to third parties?

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Why didn't Trump simply have the Trump campaign pay Stormy Daniels?

 

Why go through all the effort of fake invoices and reimbursement to third parties?

Why indeed? Because it would have been a campaign finance violation. It also would not have been reported until after the election.

 

But you know all this, you're just a cult-clone doing your groundhog Day Trolling.

[Danderman123]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why indeed? Because it would have been a campaign finance violation. It also would not have been reported until after the election.

 

But you know all this, you're just a cult-clone doing your groundhog Day Trolling.

Nope.

 

There is no statute barring the  Trump campaign paying Stormy Daniels. 

 

You clearly don't understand how this works. You are so confused that you are going to cite the prior Obama and Clinton fines as evidence that the Trump campaign couldn't pay Stormy Daniels. But as long as the payment was listed correctly, it would have been permissable.

 

And yes, it would have been reported after the election.

 

So, Trump was stupid.

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Nope.

Yep

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

 

There is no statute barring the  Trump campaign paying Stormy Daniels. 

Yes there is. 

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

 

You clearly don't understand how this works. You are so confused that you are going to cite the prior Obama and Clinton fines as evidence that the Trump campaign couldn't pay Stormy Daniels. But as long as the payment was listed correctly, it would have been permissable.

I never made that claim, you are either lying or mistaken 

3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

 

And yes, it would have been reported after the election.

 

So, Trump was stupid.

But you know all this, you're just a cult-clone doing your groundhog Day Trolling.

[Danderman123]

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yep

Yes there is. 

I never made that claim, you are either lying or mistaken 

But you know all this, you're just a cult-clone doing your groundhog Day Trolling.

Please cite the statute barring Trump's campaign from paying Stormy Daniels directly.

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Please cite the statute barring Trump's campaign from paying Stormy Daniels directly.

You've been told countless time, quit trolling. 

 

 

[Danderman123]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You've been told countless time, quit trolling. 

 

 

You have lost your mind.

 

There is no statute barring the Trump campaign from paying Stormy Daniels directly. 

 

However, the reality is that Trump didn't want any of the campaign staffers from learning about his relationship with Stormy Daniels, which they would if the payment were run through the campaign.

 

So, Trump arranged for her to be paid illegally. And Michael Cohen ultimately pled guilty for the payment.

[jerrymahoney]

On 5/19/2024 at 2:20 PM, Danderman123 said:

Did you join the Trump Defense team?

No. Did you join the Prosecution team?

[Chomper Higgot]

7 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What is it you think Trump is guilty of in this case? 

 

Do you think he was aware of any potential campaign finance violation? 

Surely we are going to get the answer to those two questions from the Jury in the coming days.

 

I don’t mind waiting and will accept the Jury’s verdict whatever it turns out to be.

 

Few here will make such a commitment, which tells us all how much value there is discussing anything of the matter with them.

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Surely we are going to get the answer to those two questions from the Jury in the coming days.

Yeah, the jury gets to decide what the crime is, and even the defense does not know what it is until they come back. 

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t mind waiting and will accept the Jury’s verdict whatever it turns out to be.

Yeat here you are. 

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Few here will make such a commitment, which tells us all how much value there is discussing anything of the matter with them.

I do not think Trump is guilty of anything in this case. 

 

I do not think Trump had any idea there was a potential campaign finance violation, and I do not think there was a campaign finance violation. regardless of what Cohen pleaded to. 

[Yellowtail]

Frank Snyder was a partner at Lathem & Watkins in Manhatton, had a private practice in Fulton New York, and is currently a Professor of Law at Texas A&M University, and I think he sums it up nicely: 

 

 

 

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

Great read, thanks! 

[Danderman123]

If Trump's criming was so minor, why did they spend so much effort trying to hide it?

 

This reminds me of Watergate: a third rate burglary with a huge cover-up.

[Danderman123]

"The bookkeeping error that I am being incorrectly and unconstitutionally prosecuted for is the fact that a bookkeeper, innocently and correctly, called a “Legal Expense” paid to a lawyer, a “Legal Expense.” IN EVEN SIMPLER WORDS, I CALLED A LEGAL EXPENSE, A LEGAL EXPENSE. WHAT THE HELL ELSE WOULD YOU CALL IT? A BIDEN INSPIRED ELECTION INTERFERENCE HOAX!!!"

 

This Truth Social post is called "a confession ". Trump admits he knew about the false entry in the books.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Danderman123 said:

"The bookkeeping error that I am being incorrectly and unconstitutionally prosecuted for is the fact that a bookkeeper, innocently and correctly, called a “Legal Expense” paid to a lawyer, a “Legal Expense.” IN EVEN SIMPLER WORDS, I CALLED A LEGAL EXPENSE, A LEGAL EXPENSE. WHAT THE HELL ELSE WOULD YOU CALL IT? A BIDEN INSPIRED ELECTION INTERFERENCE HOAX!!!"

 

This Truth Social post is called "a confession ". Trump admits he knew about the false entry in the books.

How id calling a NDA a legal expense a false entry. 

 

But yeah, misdemeanor. 

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

If Trump's criming was so minor, why did they spend so much effort trying to hide it?

 

This reminds me of Watergate: a third rate burglary with a huge cover-up.

"But he’s not charged with corrupting the election.  Or conspiracy.  What he’s charged with are thirty-four violations of a New York business record-keeping statute.  Those counts relate to three categories of records: invoices from Trump lawyer Michael Cohen (eleven counts), checks written by Trump to pay those invoices (eleven counts), and ledger entries recording the transactions (twelve counts).

 

To convict on any of these counts, prosecutors must demonstrate five things: (1) the item was a “business record” (2) of an “enterprise” (3) that is “false,” and (4) made with “intent to defraud” and (5) intent to “conceal” another crime.  So what evidence is there?" +

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

 

 

[Danderman123]

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How id calling a NDA a legal expense a false entry. 

 

But yeah, misdemeanor. 

Payment to someone is not a legal expense.

 

Just because your lawyer pays for you, and then you reimburse the lawyer, that's not a legal service.

 

Yes, I know you want to try to obfuscate.

 

The question is is: was Stormy Daniels payment a "legal service"? Is she a lawyer?

 

 

[Danderman123]

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

"But he’s not charged with corrupting the election.  Or conspiracy.  What he’s charged with are thirty-four violations of a New York business record-keeping statute.  Those counts relate to three categories of records: invoices from Trump lawyer Michael Cohen (eleven counts), checks written by Trump to pay those invoices (eleven counts), and ledger entries recording the transactions (twelve counts).

 

To convict on any of these counts, prosecutors must demonstrate five things: (1) the item was a “business record” (2) of an “enterprise” (3) that is “false,” and (4) made with “intent to defraud” and (5) intent to “conceal” another crime.  So what evidence is there?" +

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

 

 

And the Watergate burglars were not charged with corrupting an election.

 

BTW, thanks for listing the charges. You could have done that a month ago, and saved 100 posts.

 

Unfortunately, tomorrow you will be asking "what was the crime?".

Edited May 26 by Danderman123

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

And the Watergate burglars were not charged with corrupting an election.

 

BTW, thanks for listing the charges. You could have done that a month ago, and saved 100 posts.

 

Unfortunately, tomorrow you will be asking "what was the crime?".

"First, none of the alleged false items is a “business record” under New York law because all of them were invoiced, paid, and recorded in Trump’s personal accounts, not those of any of his enterprises.  No New York court has ever extended the statute to apply to individual making entries in his own personal checking account.

 

Next, there is no evidence that these entries themselves were made with “intent to defraud” anyone.  All relate to Trump’s personal accounts, either his checkbook or his revocable trust.  Nobody but Trump and his employees would ever see them.  It would be absurd and unprecedented to charge an individual with attempting defraud himself."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

 

 

[Danderman123]

35 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

"First, none of the alleged false items is a “business record” under New York law because all of them were invoiced, paid, and recorded in Trump’s personal accounts, not those of any of his enterprises.  No New York court has ever extended the statute to apply to individual making entries in his own personal checking account.

 

Next, there is no evidence that these entries themselves were made with “intent to defraud” anyone.  All relate to Trump’s personal accounts, either his checkbook or his revocable trust.  Nobody but Trump and his employees would ever see them.  It would be absurd and unprecedented to charge an individual with attempting defraud himself."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

 

 

Prosecutors are now showing the jury each of the seven monthly checks Michael Cohen received in 2017 from the Trump Organization totaling $420,000, reimbursement primarily for fronting the money to silence Stormy Daniels.

[Danderman123]

As the jury verdict nears, @Yellowtail is getting nervous and desperate.

[earlinclaifornia]

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

As the jury verdict nears, @Yellowtail is getting nervous and desperate.

Just like Trump reality has caught up to them both. And the pain is undeniable but good.

[Yellowtail]

28 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

As the jury verdict nears, @Yellowtail is getting nervous and desperate.

Nervous and desperate about what? I've said all along that I expect Trump will be convicted. 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

31 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Prosecutors are now showing the jury each of the seven monthly checks Michael Cohen received in 2017 from the Trump Organization totaling $420,000, reimbursement primarily for fronting the money to silence Stormy Daniels.

"Twenty-three of the counts also fail because the checks and ledger entries are not “false.”  The checks reflect exactly what happened: Trump paid Cohen the amount specified.  The checks have not been tampered with.  In New York, a document that contains only true information cannot be “false,” no matter what the defendant has done.  The same applies to the twelve ledger entry counts, which accurately record the transactions. Even if the transaction were fraudulent, the entries about it would be true.

 

As for the crime the alleged plot was trying to conceal—well, the prosecution still hasn’t said what it is.  The D.A. has suggested three possible crimes involving federal election law, state election law, and federal tax law.  But no evidence at the trial shows any of those."

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

[Danderman123]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

"Twenty-three of the counts also fail because the checks and ledger entries are not “false.”  The checks reflect exactly what happened: Trump paid Cohen the amount specified.  The checks have not been tampered with.  In New York, a document that contains only true information cannot be “false,” no matter what the defendant has done.  The same applies to the twelve ledger entry counts, which accurately record the transactions. Even if the transaction were fraudulent, the entries about it would be true.

 

As for the crime the alleged plot was trying to conceal—well, the prosecution still hasn’t said what it is.  The D.A. has suggested three possible crimes involving federal election law, state election law, and federal tax law.  But no evidence at the trial shows any of those."

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

Your understanding of this case is not good.

 

The Prosecution has laid out the facts, but you refuse to listen.

 

Closing arguments are coming soon, please pay attention.

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

Your understanding of this case is not good.

 

The Prosecution has laid out the facts, but you refuse to listen.

 

Closing arguments are coming soon, please pay attention.

"In short, the prosecution proved what everyone already knew: Daniels asked for money, Trump told Cohen handle the matter, Cohen paid Daniels, and Trump reimbursed him.
 
What is disturbing here to an old lawyer who’s proud of his profession, is that the Manhattan District Attorney dedicated seven years, countless thousands of lawyer hours, and many millions of dollars to bring a case that (as a class 5 felony) equivalent in seriousness to the unlicensed sale an ounce of weed or hitting your ex’s car door with a hammer.
 
So relatively minor, yet they still can’t seem to prove it."

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

 

[Danderman123]

40 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

"In short, the prosecution proved what everyone already knew: Daniels asked for money, Trump told Cohen handle the matter, Cohen paid Daniels, and Trump reimbursed him.
 
What is disturbing here to an old lawyer who’s proud of his profession, is that the Manhattan District Attorney dedicated seven years, countless thousands of lawyer hours, and many millions of dollars to bring a case that (as a class 5 felony) equivalent in seriousness to the unlicensed sale an ounce of weed or hitting your ex’s car door with a hammer.
 
So relatively minor, yet they still can’t seem to prove it."

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/

 

All of that just to hide the affair with Stormy Daniels just before the election.

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

All of that just to hide the affair with Stormy Daniels just before the election.

It’s not that the prosecutors are incompetent. They’re experienced and skillful. They just don’t seem to have any relevant evidence.  They don’t seem even to be trying to fit evidence into the specific charges.  Why?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3007722/trump-trial-verdict-now-law-later/