TXAggie2011 said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

And I think the conspiracy explanation above is pretty good. Lots of people get dinged for conspiracy to commit a crime even though they're not charged with that crime for some reason.

---

Is that like the get away driver even though he was never inside pulling the trigger or robbing the store?

---

In that universe, yes. I'm sure folks have her words like aid, abet, accessory, perjury, obstruction, tampering, etc.

We have a whole universe of crimes that relate to the "cover up."

---

To add to this, let's take Trump or the specific facts of this case out of the equation for a minute.

I own a business, and I donate $1 million bucks to a campaign, even though I know that's well above legal campaign limits. I do this, knowing I am breaking federal election law. My accountant hears about this, so he goes in makes up $1 million in business losses to explain where that $1 million went and hide that I broke campaign finance laws.

He's falsified business records to conceal my violation of law. If that case came down the pipe, this board wouldn't bat an eye if my accountant got dinged for a felony, I bet.

I think most would agree its a perfectly understandable and valid law if they take the emotion and politics out of it for a minute.

Whether the state can prove Trump himself intended to conceal something, that's another issue I've said I have questions about. But again, meeting the burden of proof is a whole different animal than the underlying legal elements of the crime.

---

Really bad analogy because this isn't remotely close to what happened.

Paying her to keep quiet isn't violating any campaign laws or any other laws for that matter. As Alan Derschowitz said...hush payments aren't against the law.

It got labeled legal fees. That's what they were. Now if it was labeled "campaign fee", then I think you would have a legitimate case, especially if it was paid using campaign dollars. But it wasn't.

---

Its almost exactly what happened if they determine the payment was actually, in fact a campaign contribution.

But I don't any other way than how I said it above that I'm not talking about whether the facts in this case amount to a violation or not but rather the prudence of the law itself.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

It feels like you're not actually reading my entire posts.

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

I think it's been stated previously, but the judge is not allowing the defense to present anything in evidence from the FEC and SDNY investigations, correct?

---

Quote:

---

A campaign contribution from whom?

Trump paid the bill from Trump's bank account. There were no campaign funds involved.

And even if there were, which there weren't, the state has no jurisdiction on that.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

I think it's been stated previously, but the judge is not allowing the defense to present anything in evidence from the FEC and SDNY investigations, correct?

---

Correct.

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

I think it's been stated previously, but the judge is not allowing the defense to present anything in evidence from the FEC and SDNY investigations, correct?

---

Quote:

---

Smith will be permitted to testify generally as to the following: general background as to what the Federal Campaign Commission (FEC) is, background as to who makes up the FEC, what the FEC's function is, what laws, if any, the FEC is responsible for enforcing, and general functions and terms that relate direclty to this case, such as for example "campaign contribution."

---

Quote:

---

The defendant has indicated that he does not "intend to offer evidence relating to the FEC complaints that were dismissed against Defendant, or the decision by the US Department of Justice ("DOJ") not to charge Defendant with campaign finance violations.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Hawg, how is an alleged federal charge tried in a state court which has no federal jurisdiction? I've never seen that.

---

The T's have not been crossed nor the I's dotted here, nor do I think the state can ever get there as it pertains to Trump directly. Trup was in the WH. Not in charge of his trust nor the Trump Org. He was not directing day to day operations at the time these invoices were booked into accounts payable, nor how they were classified as legal expenses, approved and checks cut in the year 2017.

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

I think it's been stated previously, but the judge is not allowing the defense to present anything in evidence from the FEC and SDNY investigations, correct?

---

Correct.

---

I guess I'm confused on this. The conclusions could be redacted or omitted, but the evidence gathered during the investigation could be exculpatory?

---

aggiehawg said:

---

will25u said:

---

So the only way this can be tied to Trump(I guess?) is for Cohen to say that Trump told him to come up with the money to pay the $130k for the story and then we will repay you through the Trump org?

And sorry if I am way behind, IANAL and have been half paying attention as I am very busy in my personal/business life.

---

Here's the problem with that. Stormy's lawyer, Keith Davidson, testified differently. He was pesturing Cohen when Cohen was late on transmitting the payment in the few weeks leading to the election. According to Davidson, Cohen told him that he (Cohen) could not reach Trump while he was out campaigning and then further said he (Cohen) would "just handle it" himself.

That was corroborated in part by Farro, Cohen's banker. Cohen was insisting that a new account for Essential Consultants be opened immediately, that a wire from Cohen's home equity line of credit be transferred into that account in the amount of $130,000, also immediately. Within 24 hours, account was opened, received the HELOC funds and then wired out to Keith Davidson's designated account number.

Farro's information from Cohen was that this was for some real estate related deal. nothing to do with Trump, nor Trump's campaign as that would have alarmed him and his bank's internal procedures would require much more investigation before following Cohen's instructions.

---

Quote:

---

I don't know if the law says it has to be your crime you're covering up. You could be falsifying records to cover up a crime of a buddy of yours.

---

Quote:

---

Holy crap! How have I missed this?

This right here should fatally undermine Bragg's case.

Expenses were entered into Trump organizations' books in 2017, while Trump was POTUS and had not only resigned from all managerial positions from Trump organizations, but had also placed his assets into trust.

He was busy being POTUS, but the prosecution would have us believe that not only was he running the government, but he was simultaneously so involved in his personal businesses that he was still directing how individual expenses were to be booked.

This gets more farcical by the day...

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

I think it's been stated previously, but the judge is not allowing the defense to present anything in evidence from the FEC and SDNY investigations, correct?

---

Correct.

---

I guess I'm confused on this. The conclusions could be redacted or omitted, but the evidence gathered during the investigation could be exculpatory?

---

They can bring in the underlying evidence. They're not excluded from bringing in evidence like accounting records that were part of the file in the FEC or SDNY complaint.

They're excluded from talking about the conclusions/results/fact of the complaint being dismissed, that kind of stuff.

---

bobbranco said:

---

You are full of it.

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

And I think the conspiracy explanation above is pretty good. Lots of people get dinged for conspiracy to commit a crime even though they're not charged with that crime for some reason.

---

Is that like the get away driver even though he was never inside pulling the trigger or robbing the store?

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Even CNN's legal analyst believes Stormy's testimony yesterday was a disaster.

---

She was there to (1) say they had sex to explain what Trump was worried about and (2) to say Trump didn't express a need at the time to "cover it up."

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

I suppose the argument could be that Cohen committed the initial crime when he paid the money out of his own pocket. That was an in-kind campaign contribution above the legal limit.

---

Quote:

---

I'm optimistic that the entire jury sees right through this nonsense -- ESPECIALLY the two attorneys on the case -- but the recent sociopolitical stupidity I've witnessed and the fact that this is in Manhattan leaves me skeptical.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm optimistic that the entire jury sees right through this nonsense -- ESPECIALLY the two attorneys on the case -- but the recent sociopolitical stupidity I've witnessed and the fact that this is in Manhattan leaves me skeptical.

---

Yeah but the two attorneys can always be cowed by other jury members sayng a hung jury will threaten their families. One way or another.

Me? Were I on that jury? Come at me bro. You might kill me but I have no children and The Hubs has..ahem...fortifications..

---

Ag with kids said:

---

So...

Let's just assume the following as facts...

Trump paid Cohen, a lawyer, for having him get SD to sign an NDA.

An NDA is a legal document.

The attorney was performing a job he had been tasked with - a legal service.

So, explain to me how classifying these as "legal expenses" is in any way incorrect.

Is there a ledger entry that should chosen that said "illegal campaign contribution for legal expenses"?

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

So...

Let's just assume the following as facts...

Trump paid Cohen, a lawyer, for having him get SD to sign an NDA.

An NDA is a legal document.

The attorney was performing a job he had been tasked with - a legal service.

So, explain to me how classifying these as "legal expenses" is in any way incorrect.

Is there a ledger entry that should chosen that said "illegal campaign contribution for legal expenses"?

---

Maybe separating costs from fees? But that was not how Cohen invoiced. he had no staffe, no actual law practice.

i made a refernce to Coden earlier as Steve Dallas from Bloom County.

"Knew what he wanted out of life and set his legal fees accodingly."

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

It feels like you're not actually reading my entire posts.

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

It feels like you're not actually reading my entire posts.

---

bobbranco said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

It feels like you're not actually reading my entire posts.

---

We read the entirety and are shocked at the Banana Republic you are hell bent on engendering.

---