Posted on 05/31/2024 8:38:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
OK, serious answers only please...
I'm trying to understand exactly what felony Trump was convicted of in yesterday's verdict.
Here's what I understand (please correct me if I am wrong or inaccurate in any of my interpretation) :
1) Trump was accused of a sexual affair with Porn Star Stormy Daniels almost 20 years ago.
2) 9 years later, as Trump was planning to ran for President, he had Stormy Daniels sign a non-disclosuer agreement in exchange for paying her $130,000 for her silence.
3) Trump is being charged with falsifying business records in relation to this particular payment.
Now, here's what I'm trying to understand ( but still don't ) -- exactly what felony did Trump commit?
#1 Might be morally wrong ( assuming it were true ), but it is NOT illegal between consenting adults.
#2 Isn't illegal either. Non-disclosure agreements are routinely being signed all the time, even with regards to something similar to what Trump allegedly did.
That brings us to Number 3: Falsifying business records.
What exactly did Trump falsify?
How should the payment to Stormy Daniels be declared in order to make it NOT illegal?
Can anyone enlighten me on this? Thanks.
Again, if you don't know, please don't post.
I can understand sarcasm, but the purpose of my opening this thread is to understand what exactly made his act a felony.
RE: The essential crime is that DJT’s accountant selected “Legal Expense” from the Quicken dropdown list, instead of “Personal Expense”,
So, a wrong entry in the drop down menu caused the entire $10 million case and a right entry would not have.
Maybe Legal Expense could have been considered a tax deductible expense while a Personal Expense is not.
So, essentially, it boils down to a non-payment of a tax, right? Is that a felony? Or a misdemeanor?
Why can’t they just fine the Trump Organization for this and move on?
RE: Falsifying records
I know that’s the charge ( I wrote it at the start of the thread). But IN WHAT WAY? That’s the reason for this thread.
It's circular; Bragg is charging Trump with the result of the crime along with the crime.
If the underlying crime is an incorrect tax filing, Bragg is charging Trump with falsifying a business record to cover up a tax crime.
If the underlying crime is a misappropriation of campaign funds, then Bragg is charging Trump with falsifying a business record that created the campaign funds violation.
In other words, it's almost like the underlying crime is a double-jeopardy if the charged crime.
-PJ
Bragg’s statement said something like “call hush money a legal expense in order to steal the 2016 election.”
So, I imagine it is controlling negative info that could cause you to lose.
No one has ever done that before in the history of our nation. /sarc
Job applicant to interviewer: “Well, sir, if you haven’t noticed it, you need to know that I failed my high school history class.”
There you go.
BTW, you are extremely valuable to everyone. Nobody has access to your brain but you and God.
That access is used and explored every day. It takes time to get to the levels I know you have reached.
:^)
RE: the accountants could have described the payments to Cohen as “Legal expenses and NDA consideration”.
So, the entire thing boils down to failure to write three words down in the record declaration: “and NDA consideration”?
Here’s a question, isn’t an NDA a LEGAL EXPENSE? if so, why the need to add those three words? Isn’t it ASSUMED to be part of the all embracing “Legal Expense” umbrella?
If an NDA is not a legal expense, why not? You need a lawyer to draft the NDA don’t you?
I’m not being pedantic, the 3 words you mentioned will affect every single business entities in the USA should they see a need for an NDA in future.
Heck, they might have to review their financial filings to see if they made the same violation as Trump did.
He was convicted of calling his payments “legal fees” when they were not. So, these would have been used in his tax records and his election reports.
So, every time he entered those payments as “retainers” he “committed a crime.”
Do I agree with it as a felony? Do I think he “directed” someone to code these payments that way? Nope. But that isn’t what you asked.
Thanks, I think I know what you’re trying to say.
Those were the “underlying” crime that rolled into the larger felony of doing this to give him cover during the election.
Again, I don’t agree with them…but that was the only way they could take old misdemeanor crimes and make them “live” felonies.
I was being facetious. It is all a made up banana republic charge. DJT’s NDA is legal. There were no tax consequences to his choice either way. NY said he should have booked it as a campaign expense. At most, this was a misdemeanor accounting error, on which the statute of limitations had run.
Alvin Bragg conflated it to a felony by saying this accounting issue was done the process of another crime. Bragg never identified what that crime might have been. Merchan never required him to identify the crime. That alone is a 6th amendment violation.
Side note is that John Edwards paid a NDA to his baby momma/videographer. He booked it as a campaign expense. Feds charged him with a similar crime, saying it should have been booked as a legal expense. Jury nullification, with hung jury.
RE: He was convicted of calling his payments “legal fees” when they were not.
Aren’t the payments related to his lawyer for the Non-disclosure agreement? If so, why are they not considered LEGAL FEES?
If not, HOW should it have been classified ( or called in the business record ) so as not to be considered illegal?
Should he have specifically said — “payment to Stormy Daniels to not make public our affair” ?
If so, doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the NDA?
I’m not trying to be cute, I just want to understand that if the NDA is NOT considered legal expense, how should it have been written down in the business records so that it is not a violation?
RE: Trump signed 34 checks to Cohen. Legal Expense
If they were done towards ONE specific payment — $130,000, how are they considered separate illegalities? Shouldn’t they be considered ONE?
And the legal expense was to Michael Cohen for the Non-Disclosure Agreement. Isn’t a Non-Disclosure agreement a LEGAL document? If so, how is payment for this agreement not a legal expense?
The original post asked “what” he was convicted of. I didnt watch the trial so I don’t know much more than that. I care about the trial enough to think the whole thing was stupid…but I am not going to enter into discussions about “what about..”
Michael Cohen, his attorney, outlaid the money to Stormy Daniels. He reimbursed Cohen and labelled the payment as “legal fees” instead of campaign contributions. This false business record keeping was done in order to conceal or further the crime of... something.
“And the legal expense was to Michael Cohen for the Non-Disclosure Agreement. Isn’t a Non-Disclosure agreement a LEGAL document? If so, how is payment for this agreement not a legal expense?”
Because the money wasn’t a payment to Cohen for prepping the document, it was a payment to Cohen to reimburse him for paying Daniels.
If Trump had paid Cohen $140,000 for example, 10K for prepping the NDA and 130K to be paid to Daniels then the 10K could have been legitimately classed as legal fees. NDAs are a common legal event, there are presumably standard ways to classify payments for NDAs.
RE: He reimbursed Cohen and labelled the payment as “legal fees” instead of campaign contributions.
How is an NDA with Stormy Daniels not a legal fee? Didn’t Michael Cohen prepare the NDA for her to sign?
My understanding is non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are legal documents that are widely used in various industries and situations. They are designed to protect confidential information ( yes, even Trump’s affair ) and trade secrets. NDAs are enforceable in court, and parties who breach the terms of the agreement can face legal consequences, including financial penalties or injunctions to prevent disclosure of the protected information.
So, if they are legal documents, how is the payment not a legal fee?
RE: This false business record keeping was done in order to conceal or further the crime of... something.
We can’t just stop there — what is that something?
What was done is only a "crime" because in some 5 layer twisted logic it was made into one. Reminds me of "show me the man and I'll find the crime" or spinator Meacham in "Shooter" saying, "The truth is what I say it is.". Both of the sobs that said these things got not just what they deserved but what needed to happen to them and anyone else who steps outside the boundaries of civil society and order that will not be controlled.
To me, even worse and more convoluted was the other Trump conviction about the loan applications. We seem to have let that one slide into the past already. What happened to the trucker's boycott of NY?
I'm ready to move on from talk. If this travesty is not stopped and with prejudice we will have constables and justices of the peace controlling national affairs.
We have now seen, probably again, the indictment of a ham sandwich. Twice or more for one man. What next? What happens when they jail Trump? They will you know. They will because they can and they will to prove they can't be intimidated.
I just hope and pray they have backed themselves into a corner they can never get out of.
RE: If Trump had paid Cohen $140,000 for example, 10K for prepping the NDA and 130K to be paid to Daniels then the 10K could have been legitimately classed as legal fees.
OK, so the $130,000 should have been declared as WHAT exactly so that it would not be illegal?
“OK, so the $130,000 should have been declared as WHAT exactly so that it would not be illegal?”
Not sure, but given the fact that payments for NDAs exist, there is presumably some standard way of categorizing those payments.
The basis of this phony case is that the $130,000 dollars to Stormy was a campaign contribution according to Bragg. It was not. Using Alvin Bragg’s logic it should have been from campaign funds. This would be illegal and the diversion of campaign funds for private use. The FEC would have gone after Trump quite rightly for this if he had done this.
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.