Posted on 05/22/2024 3:18:17 PM PDT by brookwood
Trump has an obvious and dispositive defense against the Alvin Bragg charges. The Trump Organization ("TO") financial records listed to payments to Michael Cohen as "Legal Expenses".
Bragg contends that this was a fraudulent description of the payments, because the payment to Cohen was passed on to Stephanie Clifford's lawyer as consideration for her entering into a non-disclosure agreement ("NDA"). So, Bragg must propose an alternative non-fraudulent description of the payment. If there is no such non-fraudulent description than the TO had no choice but to describe the payments as legal expenses. So, let's consider some alternative descriptions of the payments to Michael Cohen that would clearly have been non-fraudulent. For example, the TO could have said they were "legal expenses" but added the annotation "related to NDA". That would be clearly indicating the nature of the payments. They could have said "Legal Expense and payments for NDA". They could have also put the payments in the "Miscellaneous" category, but because part of the payments were legal expenses that would have been inaccurate. They could have asked Cohen how much went for the NDA and how much went to Clifford, and put the Clifford payments in a line item "Consideration for NDA". That would have been a 100 percent non-fraudulent entry. And what difference would it make? That entry does not say "payment to a porn star" since it conceals the name of the recipient. If anyone asked Trump who entered into the NDA he or anyone else involved could have said GFY it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. No one would have asked because there is a $17mm slush fund for members of Congress to buy off all their disgruntled employees or harassment victims or to whomever the hell they need to pay.
So here's the rub - why didn't Weisselberg or someone make a more accurate description of the payments when there was absolutely no reason not to describe them as NDA payments. The only answer is because THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT COHEN WAS DOING OR WHO HE WAS PAYING - and 1) if they didn't know they were not being deceptive and 2) if they DID know, there was still no reason for them not to accurately describe the payments as being related to an NDA. They either used a general term for the payments or didn't know the specifics about the payments. So by using "legal expense" instead of "NDA payment" who was being deceived? What possible effect could it have had on the election if it was known that Trump or someone in the TO paid someone to enter into an NDA? The NDA could have been about terms of employment, non-compete, proprietary client information, trade secrets.
Someone in Trump world, for absolutely no reason, lumped this in the legal expense bucket. Whether this was oversight, sloppiness, to make the statements more concise, or because they didn't know what Cohen was doing with the money, there was absolutely no difference in terms of the election (which was over for 8 weeks before the entry was made in any case) whether it was described as a legal expense of as payment for an NDA (but without listing the party to the NDA). Hey Christopher Kise, Alina Habba, Todd Blanche, ARE YOU LISTENING?
I’d like to see the PROOF that this money went from Cohen to Daniels as I believe Cohen was shaking DJT down and probably in cahoots with her.
Not a single bit of this matters. It’s all politics.
The whole case is ridiculous. Even the highly partisan Cy Vance, Jr., passed on the case. But Judge Merchan will explain to the jurors why they should convict. There may be Democrat activists in the jury who will pressure any undecideds (if there are any) to give in and vote with the rest.
“involving or affecting disposition or settlement:
a dispositive clue in a case of embezzlement.”
You must listen to Dan Bongino, he uses it often and often incorrectly.
The word is rather nebulous in meaning and usage.
The entry was accurate.
And I assume Trump didn’t make the entry.
THIS money didn’t go to Daniels. She received a lump sum from Cohen. Trump Org paid Cohen back over months.
These payments were an attorney expense.
The State of New York has no authority to enforce federal election laws, that is the prerogative of the FEC. The FEC did not find any violation of the law or choose to litigate. An NDA doesn’t violate election law. The whole legal theory behind this prosecution is moot.
Everyone with half a brain knows this is complete garbage and believe me the vast majority of voters know this is garbage. It is my hope that the result of this lawfare is the conversion of New York to a red state.
Let me see if I understand this.
If Trump paid Cohen for legal services and booked it as a "legal expense," and then Cohen passed on the money to his landlord for his monthly rent expense, then Trump was supposed to record the payment to Cohen as "rent expense?"
What if Trump had put "loan repayment" in the memo field instead? Would that have gotten him a pass?
-PJ
“What does Alvin Bitch look like in all of his financial transactions?”
I don’t know but Eric Adams has an E. Jean Caroll problem (sexual assault claim)
https://nypost.com/2023/11/23/metro/eric-adams-accused-of-sexual-assaulting-woman-in-1993-in-bombshell-legal-filing/
I assume the porn star signed the NDA, which would make payment for signing a legal document a legal expense.
New York State law governs the election of its electors, which Trump had zero chance of getting.
Subject to Amendment XV of course.
Next the objective here is not to try Trump for a real crime, the objective is to get Trump in a court case where he is kept off of the campaign trail, has to spend his personal money to defend himself. This is being done to get the expected verdict returned so that he can be sentenced to jail time
What was written in the the ledger book as to what the payment was for, wouldn't have changed anything. It was in fact a bill from his lawyer, that Trump paid, not personally, but his accountant paid and documented the payment in the ledger book as the lawyer payment it was.
Trump will never spend any real time in jail, if any, because the case is so riddled with flaws, that there is no way it isn't accepted on appeal.
It's the optics that the Democrats want in order to then use to proclaim Trump a convicted criminal.
But this whole lawfare strategy is exploding on their faces, as all 4 are facing serious issues, and people who were against Trump are coming over to support Trump, because they can relate to the railroad job of the injustice system.
the checks in question were signed by Don,JR & Eric Trump.
Where were the business entries made and by who.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.