- 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 2:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
I’m not a lawyer and so it’s certainly possible my reading of the case and the New York law is misunderstood, but my understanding was that escalating a charge from a misdemeanor to a felony on the basis of its commission with another concurrent felony requires that the alleged crime be a state crime.
1
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:22 pm to UAinSOUTHAL
quote:
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.
He pled guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution.
He admitted before a federal judge to committing those crimes. In guilty pleas before fed judges, you typically affirm knowing what you did was illegal. This helps make it less likely to go to an appeal based on findings.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:25 pm to deeprig9
This put me in a tailspin when I was reminded of it today.
LINK
quote:
Hillary Clinton got mere fines for a far more serious records offense in an almost exactly similar context: calling the funding of the infamous Steele dossier “legal and compliance consulting.” That’s hiding a role in an electorally significant public fraud, and though I’m not sure that offense warranted jail, it’s certain Trump’s “crime” didn’t, if Hillary’s doesn’t even go to court. This was one non-crime, serving as the predicate for conspiracy to commit another non-crime, which incidentally was artificially split in pieces to add years and penalties. The 34 counts are another absurdity, one reporters continually forgot yesterday to cover up by pretending the case was about multiple acts and not one deal (the Globe and Mail: Trump convicted of trying to “hide a US$130,000 payoff to porn star Stormy Daniels”).
LINK
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:25 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
on the basis of its commission with another concurrent felony requires that the alleged crime be a state crime.
This is repeated often in the echo chamber with no real argument or citation, because their argument is flawed.
They argue from the position that is requires a conviction of that crime, however, this jury instruction, apparently, shows the jurisprudence in NY.
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.
Nobody has given me a login to a WL or Nexis account with NY state access, but when they do, I would gladly confirm the precedent for that for this forum for free.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's a business expense clearly.
Remember this all happened before he was president. His business includes his brand. Preventing his brand from being defamed is a valid business expense. Eventually, he even successfully sued her and won $300k from her, for defamation. Do you know how high the bar is for a public figure to win a defamation case against a regular citizen? His company paid a business expense through a lawyer who arranged it all, coded as legal expense, for an NDA to protect his company's value.
This could have all been litigated, had the judge allowed it.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:25 pm to OysterPoBoy
Based on what happened here, things don't look good for Daniel Penny.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:25 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The "rub" is the entire predicate rests on the premise that Trump violated FEDERAL ELECTION LAWS, something for which he was never even charged.
My understanding is the charge becomes a felony when there is an attempt to conceal a crime. It does not specify that it must be a crime committed by the defendant.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:28 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Preventing his brand from being defamed is a valid business expense
Please show me where the IRS would permit paying for an NDA with a woman you had an affair with to be permitted as a business expense
quote:
Eventually, he even successfully sued her and won $300k from her, for defamation
Wrong. She sued him for defamation and got hit with a SLAPP response, which led to her having to pay his attorneys fees.
quote:
Do you know how high the bar is for a public figure to win a defamation case against a regular citizen?
High. He didn't do this.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:34 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Please show me where the IRS would permit paying for an NDA with a woman you had an affair with to be permitted as a business expense
Please show me where the IRS or NY Dept of Revenue accused him of doing this. You know damn well the IRS doesn't have any particular section of code regarding this situation specifically regarding NDA's. You are asking me to point you to something you know doesn't exist.
quote:
Wrong. She sued him for defamation and got hit with a SLAPP response, which led to her having to pay his attorneys fees.
Same difference, court determined she was so full of shite they ordered her to pay a billionaire $300k.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:37 pm to NC_Tigah
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.
Cohen made the $130,000 payment through a shell corporation he set up and funded at a bank in Manhattan (jurisdiction of NY and also under fed jurisdiction). This payment was illegal. According to the court's "Statement of Facts, "False entries were also made in New York business records to effectuate this payment, separate and apart from the New York business records used to conceal the payment."
If it happens in NY, it is their jurisdiction, no? Doesn't matter if the feds also have jurisdiction. It's still a crime that took place in their jurisdiction.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:37 pm to deeprig9
quote:
Please show me where the IRS or NY Dept of Revenue accused him of doing this.
The State of NY just did.
quote:
You know damn well the IRS doesn't have any particular section of code regarding this situation specifically regarding NDA's.
I know the IRS understands the different in a personal expense and a business one.
quote:
You are asking me to point you to something you know doesn't exist.
Because your argument is silly.
quote:
Same difference
No, incredibly different.
quote:
court determined she was so full of shite they ordered her to pay a billionaire $300k.
No, her suit was just not valid, b/c Avenatti was a worse attorney than the typical ones Trump gets (which says something).
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Had he paid her directly, none of this was possible.
Simply not true
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:40 pm to HailToTheChiz
quote:
Simply not true
How could Trump get a "business records" charge if he paid from a personal account?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:41 pm to Barstools
quote:
So its not a real thing.
Your argument is with Trump's CFO, not me. And the doubling for tax purposes may not have been a crime, except that it was part of a conspiracy to hide other crimes.
quote:
There is no such thing as what you're describing.
Once again, pay attention. I'm describing only what Trump's CFO and his assistant wrote on the invoice re: their crimes. Your issue with the terminology should be addressed to them.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:42 pm to Barstools
quote:
Even if it were "grossed up" whayever the fuxk that means, he can pay as much as he wants for legal fees.
That's the whole problem - they were in no way legal fees. They were a reimbursement of a hush money payment to a porn star convicted felon Trump fricked, then tried to hide that fact from voters before an election.
Once you understand this wasn't a legitimate financial problem, but rather a fraud problem, you'll be much further on the way to understanding why Trump is now a felon.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:42 pm to OysterPoBoy
Not run for President.
frick these assholes. May they all burn in Hades.
frick these assholes. May they all burn in Hades.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:44 pm to Willie Stroker
quote:
Should not have entered any payoffs into business ledgers. Should not have begun a shell corporation to hide a payoff. Somebody that rich needs to have cash on hand for payoffs.
So trump pays a legal fee and he’s a felon, but 10% to the big guy using aliases and multi channels to exchange funds from foreign countries is totally legal.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:45 pm to dgnx6
quote:
So trump pays a legal fee and he’s a felon, but 10% to the big guy using aliases and multi channels to exchange funds from foreign countries is totally legal.
What the frick? Nobody is talking about Biden.
And just FWIW, I think Biden got improper payments and I'd love him to be prosecuted for it (as well as mishandling classified documnets)
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The State of NY just did.
Post it.
quote:
I know the IRS understands the different in a personal expense and a business one.
It if was a payment to a whore to have sex with her, that's personal. If it's hush money to keep the whore quiet with an NDA after the fact, that's very arguably a business expense when the owner of the company is also the public face of the company with a brand worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It's a shame this trial didn't allow any of that logic and legalese to be litigated for the jury. Instead they are supposed to use their imaginations on what the law is or isn't.
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 5/31/24 at 2:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:the prosecutor said he was guilty but too stupid to stand trial. But lawfare is a myth
as well as mishandling classified documnets)
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News