- 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 1:15 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The "rub" is the entire predicate rests on the premise that Trump violated FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS,
Not necessarily, although his is a common assumption from the Right.
And it has no place here because
quote:
Let’s assume the jury got it right.
quote:
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.
The jury instructions actually cover this.
2
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:17 pm to Barstools
quote:
I'm a CPA but please explain to me what "Gross Up" means in relation to a business expense reimbursement?
It was the term Weisselberg used to describe their scheme to reimburse Cohen for paying off Trump's porn star, and falsely misclassify it as a legal expense.
Did you think it was a word I came up with? He wrote it ON THE INVOICE.
You should try paying attention sometime.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:18 pm to Stuttgart Tiger
I guess Trump lubes up his dick with Germ X hand sanitizer after he fux porn stars and sluts. That is one thing I've always found him stupid for, claiming to be a germaphone while screwing sluts without wearing a condom. Oh, and pee is sterile is the answer to your Russian hooker question.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:OFFS
The jury instructions actually cover this.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:21 pm to BamaAtl
So its not a real thing. If you gross something up you ate presenting it NOT net. The only time presenting something gross instead of net, would be a crime, is if GAAP requires it to be presented net and someone knowingly and with the intent to conceal. Such as someone presenting Fixeds assets not net of depreciation with the I tent to deceive the user of the financial statements.
There is no such thing as what you're describing.
So, he didn't gross anything up, you're just retarded.
There is no such thing as what you're describing.
So, he didn't gross anything up, you're just retarded.
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 1:35 pm
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:23 pm to OysterPoBoy
quote:
Let’s assume the jury got it right.
No
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:24 pm to BamaAtl
And it's not a fricking crime. Even if it were "grossed up" whayever the fuxk that means, he can pay as much as he wants for legal fees. There is no limit on legal expense under GAAP so long as it is in the course of business. Which certainly describes protecting a brands image. It's made up bullshite by the prosecution to confuse financially illiterate morons with TDS, like yourself.
My team audit 100s of FS every year, I personally review and sign off on about half. There is not law or rule requiring nuisances fees to be disclosed or labeled as such, to the extent they are immaterial.
Just admit you know nothing about finance nor accounting.
My team audit 100s of FS every year, I personally review and sign off on about half. There is not law or rule requiring nuisances fees to be disclosed or labeled as such, to the extent they are immaterial.
Just admit you know nothing about finance nor accounting.
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 1:34 pm
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
OFFS
quote:
For the crime of Falsifying Business Records in the First
Degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
Under our law, although the People must prove an intent
to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission
thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact
committed, aided, or concealed.
It raises the question of how NY jurisprudence got here.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And it has no place here because
quote:
Let’s assume the jury got it right.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:44 pm to OysterPoBoy
He should not have tried to clean up the settlement like he did.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:46 pm to Emmitt Fitzhume
quote:
Not Live in New York
They move the statute of limitations specifically to indict him….
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:48 pm to Emmitt Fitzhume
quote:
Not Live in New York
I suspect that state is fixing to lose lots of business.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:49 pm to OysterPoBoy
quote:
Hey, I’m just glad they got him off the streets.
But they didn’t. He’s still a free man as of now. He was out giving a rally/speech right after the verdict. I don’t think he’ll spend a day in jail when all is said and done. Sorry, comrade.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Another crime within the state's jurisdiction. NY has no more basis to consider "an intent to commit" a federal crime than it does "an intent to commit" a crime in Uzbekistan.
Under our law, although the People must prove an intent
to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission
thereof
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:52 pm to Bard
quote:
What should he have done? Paid her from his own pocket.
Isn’t this what he did? The check I saw was a DJT check, not business, not campaign, so what’s the crime?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:57 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Another crime within the state's jurisdiction
Not necessary, because a conviction wasn't required.
quote:
NY has no more basis to consider "an intent to commit" a federal crime than it does "an intent to commit" a crime in Uzbekistan.
So how can they prosecute felons for possession a firearm if that felony conviction was in federal court?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
But the issue is the judge told the jury they didn’t need to agree on WHAT that other crime was. All they had to do was all agree that some other crime was committed or intended to be committed. They could all believe it was a DIFFERENT crime so long as they all believed the crime was a felony.
As far as I’m aware that is unprecedented in American law
As far as I’m aware that is unprecedented in American law
Posted on 5/31/24 at 1:58 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
But the issue is the judge told the jury they didn’t need to agree on WHAT that other crime was.
Correct. That almost certainly won't survive appeal. That is a different issue.
We are ignoring the assumption of the OP, though.
quote:
Let’s assume the jury got it right.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So how can they prosecute felons for possession a firearm if that felony conviction was in federal court?
Because it’s a crime for which they’ve actually been triad and convicted of. In this case, Trump was convicted for felonies that were only made felonies on the back of an alleged, unproven federal crime.
For this conviction to be valid, and the most proximal reason why most believe it will be overturned, the alleged unproven crime(s) the jury believed he committed would have had to be state crimes. But they weren’t, and thus a state conviction was made on the back of a theoretical federal crime that Trump has never actually even been convicted of. And again, aside from all that, is the unprecedented nature of telling a jury they don’t have to agree on what the other crime even was. They could each believe something different so long as they each believe it was a felony. That’s unheard of and preposterous.
Using the legal rational established in this case literally ANY American could theoretically be charged with a felony if they have ever had a misdemeanor traffic charge.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:07 pm to reddy tiger
Bull, you are making crap up.
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News