- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let’s assume the jury got it right.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:47 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:47 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Had he paid her directly, none of this was possible.
He likely could have still been charged with an illegal campaign contribution.
And then they would have still done the subvert an election bull crap.
This entire thing is a streaming pile of crap.
They went through everything Trump did and tried to find a crime. The best they could do was this dungheap.
They had a sham trial where they incorrectly chose a jury.
There are dozens of of errors the judge intentionally made. It will be overturned.
But they got their talking point.
But at what cost?
The destroyed the credibility of the legal system.
They knowingly used a guy who was convicted of perjury.
The state of New York is going to see flight from their state, and I'm sorry but they deserve to have their tax base collapse.
You reap what you sow.
0
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:11 am to lsuguy84
quote:
He dared to run for re-election. That’s it.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:37 am to MoarKilometers
quote:
Buying tim tebow autographed items aren't illegal, unless you use charity funds and give it away to a golfing buddy. Dude plays very loose with his financials, and this is far from the first time it has bit him in the arse.
True. And honestly anyone with his amount of money does this. And in the private world it doesn’t matter, or if you’re a democrat it doesn’t matter. A Republican running for office? Better be squeaky clean
Hell I buy personal items through my farm because it’s tax deductible or I only pay 1.5% sales tax instead of 7% then just reimburse the amount to the farm account personally.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:49 am to OysterPoBoy
quote:
Sleeping with Stormy
Trump is universally recognized as a serious germaphobe. Stormy has unprotected sex on set because she has a latex allergy.
So how does he overcome his phobia and raw dog a porn star who has had all this unprotected sex?
Same question arose over the false pissing on Russian hookers story. How is a known germaphobe suddenly getting into the water sports?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:33 am to Stuttgart Tiger
Trunp is married to a good looking woman who is much younger and she just had his baby. He decides to have some fun with a porn star. Now she wants some cash to be quiet. Trump wants this whole thing to be kept quiet.
His choices are:
1. Say the hell with it and let her go public and not pay her anything.
2. Reach into his own pocket and pay her $130K in cash.
3. Run it through his company and leave a lot of evidence in writing.
Choices 1 and 2 have no legal consequences. Choice 3 has legal consequences only if Trump and his fixer Cohen have a falling out. And that is exactly what happens.
Trump can only blame himself for choosing the only way that left written evidence.
His choices are:
1. Say the hell with it and let her go public and not pay her anything.
2. Reach into his own pocket and pay her $130K in cash.
3. Run it through his company and leave a lot of evidence in writing.
Choices 1 and 2 have no legal consequences. Choice 3 has legal consequences only if Trump and his fixer Cohen have a falling out. And that is exactly what happens.
Trump can only blame himself for choosing the only way that left written evidence.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
falsifying business records
What was false about the business record? It is a legal expense any way you want to look at it.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:39 am to Barstools
quote:
What was false about the business record?
quote:
Let’s assume the jury got it right.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:40 am to Barstools
quote:
What was false about the business record?
It was a reimbursement, not an expense for legal services. Hence the 'gross-up' for taxes.
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 11:40 am
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:42 am to BamaAtl
I have to give you credit, you are one of the resident leftists that spews your stupidity with regularity. You aren’t a drive-by goose-stepper. At least I can appreciate that. Carry on.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 11:46 am to OysterPoBoy
My understanding is that it was not classified in the financial records as "payment to hooker". It was "legal retainer". The underlying crime that misclassification was portrayed to be covering up is assumed to be campaign finance since hiding the fee was to benefit the campaign.
I'm just trying to make sense of it.
I'm just trying to make sense of it.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 12:01 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
was a reimbursement, not an expense for legal services.
Uhm with a due respect you're retarded. From a business record standpoint there is nothing false about classifying nuisance fees as legal expense. Because that's why they are. Second, from a tax perspective it is a business expense whether legal or otherwise. Reimbursing someone for paying an expense on your behalf, has absolutely zero impact o your tax return. Business expenses are deductible.
So again, which business record is false and how was it falsified?
So again, you financially illiterate shite for brains, what business record was false and how was it falsified?
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 5/31/24 at 12:05 pm to OysterPoBoy
quote:
Let’s assume the jury got it right.
Lost me here
Posted on 5/31/24 at 12:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
quote: I don’t know enough about this but it just seems like he (or whoever advises him) caused unnecessary arse pain by the way they reimbursed Cohen. Give him his 130k back but when you start adding in for taxes (right or wrong) and then including it as a retainer it just seems like it makes things complicated and opens you up for something like this. 100% correct. They were trying to hide it, and the obsfucation is what opened the door to the allegations of falsifying records.
You are making an assumption they knew about the FEC statues and were personally trying to avoid them. This is not the case because the payments were in 2016/2017 and Cohen testified that he wasn’t even aware of the FEC stuff until 2018. This is exactly why the judge did not allow the expert testimony because it would have exposed that hole. It is impossible for Trump to have committed the underlying crime because they didn’t even know about the FEC stuff until 2 years later. The whole trial was a sham and will be 100% overturned on appeal
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 5/31/24 at 12:31 pm to BamaAtl
quote:In a med mal suit, legal teams on both sides pay for sundry things ... hotels for expert witnesses, dinner meetings, etc. ... even ... wait4it ... retainer fees to keep the other side from accessing a particular expert or information.
It was a reimbursement, not an expense for legal services.
Do you know how those expenses are categorized?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 12:35 pm to OysterPoBoy
quote:
Let’s assume the jury got it right.
It was a clear-cut kangaroo court and a super clear shite stain on the Sixth Amendment.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:No!
That's the rub.
The "rub" is the entire predicate rests on the premise that Trump violated FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS, something for which he was never even charged. In our country, prior to our present Berian era, that would render Trump INNOCENT and the premise, the requisite legal foundation, null and void.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:04 pm to OysterPoBoy
quote:
Sleeping with Stormy wasn’t illegal.
Paying her to not talk wasn’t illegal.
What should he have done?
Not altered business records to try and cover it up?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:07 pm to Barstools
quote:
From a business record standpoint there is nothing false about classifying nuisance fees as legal expense.
Weird, Trump's attorneys never made that argument. Because they knew it wasn't going to work.
quote:
Second, from a tax perspective it is a business expense whether legal or otherwise.
If it were a legal bill, they wouldn't have had to double it for tax purposes.
quote:
Reimbursing someone for paying an expense on your behalf, has absolutely zero impact o your tax return
But it has an impact on THEIR tax return. Did you think the "gross-up" was for convicted felon Trump's taxes?!
quote:
what business record was false and how was it falsified?
34 in total, and they were intentionally misclassified as a legal expense in an attempt to hide other crimes.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:12 pm to OysterPoBoy
He could have paid the porn star cash.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:12 pm to BamaAtl
I'm a CPA but please explain to me what "Gross Up" means in relation to a business expense reimbursement?
You're so stupid you don't even know the meaning of the words you're saying.
You're so stupid you don't even know the meaning of the words you're saying.
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News