TRUMP 2024

ClarkGriswold said:
In the run-up to an election? You tell me.
Click to expand...
HYPOTHETICAL:

If Biden had his lawyer pay off someone to cover up Hunters laptop and then falsified accounting records to cover it up during the election run-up as "legal expenses", would that be a crime, in your estimation?
 
highslice said:
I'm not sure why that would make a difference. So you need to tell me. It was an NDA, which is legal regardless of timing.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course the NDA is legal. Not the issue. Maybe you should start listening to the coverage.

The question is if the payments and the falsifying of documents violated election finance law, as I posted earlier. I don't know the answer, which is why I am listening.
 
ClarkGriswold said:
HYPOTHETICAL:

If Biden had his lawyer pay off someone to cover up Hunters laptop and then falsified accounting records to cover it up during the election run-up as "legal expenses", would that be a crime, in your estimation?
Click to expand...
He didn't have to pay anyone, the media and FBI did it for him for free. BUT, in your hypothetical: IF the laptop did not contain evidence of a crime or crimes (which it apparently does) then no.
 
ClarkGriswold said:
When you fudge the books in an effort to conceal the payment, is that lawful? You said you are a CFO. Is that lawful?
Click to expand...
Who's books are we fudging? Trump org is a private organization. Nobody has access to "the books" so how are they concealing anything?
 
highslice said:
Are you saying that classifying the payments as "legal expenses" is illegal? How would you have recorded the payment on your accounting records?
Click to expand...
The thing is, they are taking a law designed to protect the business and using it against the business owner himself. How many cases have you heard of some bookkeeper submitting false invoices and such, doctoring the financials, etc. to steal money out of the business? That's what it is designed to get at -- people defrauding the business. If I own the business, I can classify payments anyway I like -- it makes no different to me, and doesn't defraud myself.
 
ClarkGriswold said:
HYPOTHETICAL:

If Biden had his lawyer pay off someone to cover up Hunters laptop and then falsified accounting records to cover it up during the election run-up as "legal expenses", would that be a crime, in your estimation?
Click to expand...
No it is not a crime. Unless it was done to defraud a company out of money. So let's take your example a bit further. Biden's son is working for a private business that he doesn't own. He submits false invoices from the Joe Biden Law firm, to funnel money out of the company into dad's hands to make the pay offs. The private business would have a claim against Hunter, nothing else.
 
highslice said:
Are you saying that classifying the payments as "legal expenses" is illegal? How would you have recorded the payment on your accounting records?
Click to expand...
I am not saying it. The DA is saying it. The allegation is that there was no retainer attached to said payments, as claimed.

Prosecutors charge that Cohen wired $130,000 to Daniels’ then attorney just 12 days before the presidential election. Cohen funneled the money by making the payoff through a shell company, which was funded through a New York City bank, prosecutors say.

When Trump won the election, prosecutors continue, he repaid Cohen in a series of monthly checks. Initially, those checks came from the Donald J Trump Revocable Trust – which was launched in New York to retain the president’s namesake company’s assets during his time in the White House. Then, payments to Cohen came from Trump’s bank account, per court papers.

Prosecutors say that 11 checks were doled out for this spurious purpose – and that Trump signed nine of them; the Trump Organization processed each of these checks “disguised as a payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a non-existent retainer agreement”.

Trump’s alleged passing off hush-money payouts as remittance for legal work “made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise”, prosecutors say in the counts of his indictment. This was done, they say, “with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof …”.

Prosecutors say there were a total of 34 phoney ledger entries to hide the purpose of this “covert” payment. They also contend that those who partook in the scheme plotted to mischaracterize these disbursements for taxes.
 
In court papers, prosecutors say that Trump tried to stall the Daniels payoff “for as long as possible”. Trump told Cohen that if he could delay the exchange until after the election, they might be able to avoid giving her any money, “because at that point it would not matter if the story became public”.

But, “with pressure mounting and the election approaching”, Trump agreed to pay off Daniels and told Cohen to go forward.


THAT reads as election interference, to me. But you all read differently. Obviously.
 
I see that FPOTUS called on you all to go protest outside his trial. Who is going?? @Flyer5 you heading down there?
 
Mitt, saying what everyone is thinking...

Romney: I think everybody has made their own assessment of President Trump's character, and so far as I know you don't pay someone $130,000 not to have sex with you.
 
People like Trump, who are billionaires, have attorney’s (plural) on retainers. These attorneys do provide outlays and then reimburse themselves. Not illegal.

Just like the stupid hyperbole that one of Trumps accountants, at one of his many companies, committed tax fraud under his watchful eye. (NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC). Really!? Are you that myopic? (That was rhetorical)Do you think a billionaire has time to stand over each of his hundreds of accountants shoulders?
 
ClarkGriswold said:
Mitt, saying what everyone is thinking...

Romney: I think everybody has made their own assessment of President Trump's character, and so far as I know you don't pay someone $130,000 not to have sex with you.
Click to expand...
Cool story bro. That was 2006. No one gave a shit in 2016, 2020 and it won’t matter in 2024.

However what is starting to matter is the world seeing the current administrations weaponization of our institutions to interfere in an election…..again!!
 
ClarkGriswold said:
I am not saying it. The DA is saying it. The allegation is that there was no retainer attached to said payments, as claimed.

Prosecutors charge that Cohen wired $130,000 to Daniels’ then attorney just 12 days before the presidential election. Cohen funneled the money by making the payoff through a shell company, which was funded through a New York City bank, prosecutors say.

When Trump won the election, prosecutors continue, he repaid Cohen in a series of monthly checks. Initially, those checks came from the Donald J Trump Revocable Trust – which was launched in New York to retain the president’s namesake company’s assets during his time in the White House. Then, payments to Cohen came from Trump’s bank account, per court papers.

Prosecutors say that 11 checks were doled out for this spurious purpose – and that Trump signed nine of them; the Trump Organization processed each of these checks “disguised as a payment for legal services rendered pursuant to a non-existent retainer agreement”.

Trump’s alleged passing off hush-money payouts as remittance for legal work “made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise”, prosecutors say in the counts of his indictment. This was done, they say, “with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof …”.

Prosecutors say there were a total of 34 phoney ledger entries to hide the purpose of this “covert” payment. They also contend that those who partook in the scheme plotted to mischaracterize these disbursements for taxes.
Click to expand...
Please tell me where the "illegal" coverup came. Who would have seen the checks? They are private documents. What if they said for "hookers and blow?" Any different. The fact you can't see thru the prosecution bull chit is alarming.
 
highslice said:
Would be interesting to know how they reached this conclusion.
Click to expand...
They just fkg made it up. I suppose Cohen is going to help them with it though. As if having a "retainer agreement" means anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,238
Messages
1,429,060
Members
61,119
Latest member
KenBoat
Back
Top