Trump Trial

[seekeroftruth]

Please tell us how paying off a whore is some type of a crime..did he not go thru this before and did they not find him guilty of anything?
All this BS is past the statue of limitations is it not?

I don't think paying her off was a crime. It was the bookkeeping of that payment, how it was posted for tax purposes, that is the crime. If there had been a line item for "payoffs" and had they posted the payments on that line item... the bookkeeping would have been proper.
Payoff's IMHO could be an expense of doing business for this man. Just as paying lawyers is an expense. The bookkeeper could have stopped all of this.... but just lumping that payoff in expenses. Apparently they didn't do that. Apparently they did something stupid so now we are in this spot.

It's the cover up.... just like the "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton went through, that is illegal. If I'm correct, he's been charged with 34 counts of some nefarious action or other that he got caught covering up in his bookkeeping. Bummer.....

I hate the guy but I truly think, all this could have been avoided if he had a smarter bookkeeper!!

He's still a pig... but now I know he overlooks the regular joe.... and this time the regular joe could have posted the payments properly... so as not to draw attention.

Purchasing the tension release from a professional is a cost of doing business in his case. The bookkeeper should be investigated.

IMHO... he's not guilty.... but he will probably wind up suing the bookkeeper and the accountants. They did him wrong.... but that's just my tilted opinion. I hate to say it.... he's not guilty... of this.

 

[Ken King]

IMHO... he's not guilty.... but he will probably wind up suing the bookkeeper and the accountants. They did him wrong.... but that's just my tilted opinion. I hate to say it.... he's not guilty... of this.

More likely he will be suing the DA and City of NY. And of course he isn't guilty as there was no crime.

 

[Kinnakeet]

I don't think paying her off was a crime. It was the bookkeeping of that payment, how it was posted for tax purposes, that is the crime. If there had been a line item for "payoffs" and had they posted the payments on that line item... the bookkeeping would have been proper.
Payoff's IMHO could be an expense of doing business for this man. Just as paying lawyers is an expense. The bookkeeper could have stopped all of this.... but just lumping that payoff in expenses. Apparently they didn't do that. Apparently they did something stupid so now we are in this spot.

It's the cover up.... just like the "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton went through, that is illegal. If I'm correct, he's been charged with 34 counts of some nefarious action or other that he got caught covering up in his bookkeeping. Bummer.....

I hate the guy but I truly think, all this could have been avoided if he had a smarter bookkeeper!!

He's still a pig... but now I know he overlooks the regular joe.... and this time the regular joe could have posted the payments properly... so as not to draw attention.

Purchasing the tension release from a professional is a cost of doing business in his case. The bookkeeper should be investigated.

IMHO... he's not guilty.... but he will probably wind up suing the bookkeeper and the accountants. They did him wrong.... but that's just my tilted opinion. I hate to say it.... he's not guilty... of this.

How do you know what you say is true because the news says it is

 

[GURPS]

Payoff's IMHO could be an expense of doing business for this man. Just as paying lawyers is an expense. The bookkeeper could have stopped all of this.... but just lumping that payoff in expenses. Apparently they didn't do that. Apparently they did something stupid so now we are in this spot.

It's the cover up....

You and the DA are inventing Crime over an OPINION over which business ledger column this should be recorded in


THERE WAS NO CRIME, THEREFOR NO COVER UP

☕️ DOUBLE INTENT ☙ Wednesday, April 5, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

My initial legal analysis of Bragg's indictment; TSA ends jab mandate, sort of; Bavarian jab injury program explodes; Australia quietly admits Astra jab not safe; your Wednesday video; and more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

Michael Cohen Pled Guilty to Something That Is Not a Crime​

So what does it mean to be “for the purpose of influencing an[] election”? To understand this, we read the statutory language in conjunction other parts of the statute. Here the key is the statute’s prohibition on diverting campaign funds to “personal use.” This is a crucial distinction, because one of the primary factors separating campaign funds from personal funds is that the former must be spent on the candidate’s campaign, while the latter can be used to buy expensive vacations, cars, watches, furs, and such. The law defines “personal use” as spending “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” So a candidate may intend for good toothpaste and soap, a quality suit, and a healthy breakfast to positively influence his election, but none of those are campaign expenditures, because all of those purchases would typically be made irrespective of running for office. And even if the candidate might not have brushed his teeth quite so often or would have bought a cheaper suit absent the campaign, these purchases still address his underlying obligations of maintaining hygiene and dressing himself.

To use a more pertinent example, imagine a wealthy entrepreneur who decides to run for office. Like many men and women with substantial business activities, at any one time there are likely several lawsuits pending against him personally, or against those various businesses. The candidate calls in his company attorney: “I want all outstanding lawsuits against our various enterprises settled.” His lawyer protests that the suits are without merit — the company should clearly win at trial, and he should protect his reputation of not settling meritless lawsuits. “I agree that these suits lack merit,” says our candidate, “but I don’t want them as a distraction during the campaign, and I don’t want to take the risk that the papers will use them to portray me as a heartless tycoon. Get them settled.”

The settlements in this hypothetical are made “for the purpose of influencing the election,” yet they are not “expenditures” under the Federal Election Campaign Act. Indeed, if they were, the candidate would have to pay for them with campaign funds. Thus, an unscrupulous but popular businessman could declare his candidacy, gather contributions from the public, use those contributions to settle various preexisting lawsuits, and then withdraw from the race. A nice trick!

 

[Gilligan]

How do you know what you say is true because the news says it is

She is obsessed with a particular narrative and a hoped-for outcome.

Sad.

 

[GURPS]

“I don’t think that if you had the best lawyers in the history of the world, Abraham Lincoln and John Marshall, a New York City judge would dismiss this case because that New York City judge’s life would be over,” he said.

The law professor then made a bold prediction about Trump’s indictment.

“I think he probably will be convicted by a New York jury who voted for Bragg and voted to get Trump. It will be reversed on appeal. It will never be affirmed all the way up to the Supreme Court.”

Lawyer Alan Dershowitz Predicts Trump Will Be Convicted

During a recent episode of The Charlie Kirk show, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz discussed the likelihood of joining the legal team of former President Trump (who he’s represented before), as well as the chances of a Trump conviction. Kirk asked, “If you were personally called by...

trendingpoliticsnews.com

 

[GURPS]

Yes, the indictment is inadequate on its face—but that doesn’t matter​

By Andrea Widburg

If you read through the conservative internet today, you’ll see myriad articles and videos pointing out that Alvin Bragg’s Statement of Facts and Indictment against Donald Trump are utterly baseless. In a decent system, they would be tossed out of court immediately. However, I’m here to tell you that this is not how things work in progressive/leftist judicial systems. They like going through the motions, but the system always works toward a single leftist end, law and rules be damned.

As I said, lots of lawyers have pointed out that Alvin Bragg’s indictment is so flawed that it should be thrown out on an immediate motion to dismiss. Here are just a few examples from across the political spectrum:

 

[GURPS]

THERE’S MORE – Alvin Bragg’s Case Against Trump Shows Complete Ignorance and Manipulation of Basic Accounting​

The case lists 34 counts. These counts consist of the following accounting actions:

• 11 invoices
• 12 vouchers (in February 2017 there were two vouchers)
• 11 checks cut

These are the 34 charges – they are related to 11 transactions. What’s the crime?

Here is a list in the order in which they are listed in the indictment:

Feb 14

1. Invoice- Feb 14
2. Voucher -842457
3. Voucher- 842460
4. Check- 138

March 16-17

1. Invoice- Feb 15
2. Voucher – 846907
3. Check 147

June 19

1. Invoice- April 13
2. Voucher – 858770
3. Check – 2740

May 22

1. Invoice – May 22
2. Voucher- 855331
3. Check – 2700

June 16-19

1. Invoice – June 16
2. Voucher – 858772
3. Check – 2741

July 11

1. Invoice- July 11
2. Voucher – 861097
3. Check – 2781

Aug 1

1. Invoice – Aug 1
2. Voucher- 863641
3. Check- 2821

Sep 11

1. Invoice – Sep 11
2. Voucher – 868174
3. Check – 2908

Oct 18

1. Invoice – Oct 18
2. Voucher – 872654
3. Check – 2944

Nov 20

1. Invoice – Nov 20
2. Voucher – 876511
3. Check – 2980

Dec 1

1. Invoice – Dec 1
2. Voucher – 877785
3. Check – 3006

Many of these transactions appear to be monthly recurring fees being paid perhaps as a retainer? We just don’t know from the filing.

We also don’t know what the amounts are on these individual transactions.

But most notable is that the transactions are from 2017. This was when President Trump was in office and his sons were running his company. President Trump had nothing to do with these transactions.

These transactions also somehow impacted the 2016 election – but they were made in 2017?

And again, President Trump supposedly “made and caused a false record” when these entries were addressed which is insane because no CEO of any billion-dollar enterprise is booking entries in General Ledger (GL).

This doesn’t make sense. Invoices are support for entries posted in the GL when invoices are received. There is no transaction posted in the GL when an invoice is received. The invoice is forwarded to the department that would book the entry in the GL based on adequate support which includes the invoice.

Bragg claims that the invoices received trigger a transaction separate from the vouchers posted in the accounting system. This is not true. Therefore the 11 invoices received are not entries into the GL made by President Trump or anyone. They are documents received from the client. There is no record that is “made or caused” by the invoice independent of the voucher.

THIS IS TRULY THE DUMBEST CASE IN US HISTORY.

THERE'S MORE - Alvin Bragg's Case Against Trump Shows Complete Ignorance and Manipulation of Basic Accounting | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

Author Joe Hoft is a former international corporate executive in finance and auditing.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[GURPS]

New York prosecutors' pursuit of Trump collides with a Hillary Clinton double standard​

Trump's campaign was run in 2016 out of his iconic Trump Tower in Manhattan. On Tuesday he was arraigned on 34 charges brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleging that he violated the law by listing in his private company's books repayments to his now convicted lawyer Michael Cohen as legal bills when prosecutor allege they were to cover hush-money payments in 2016 to a porn star who threatened to go public with tawdry tales before Election Day.

In contrast, Clinton ran her campaign out of a different New York City borough, Brooklyn, but faced no prosecution when her campaign and the Democratic National Committee disguised payments for the opposition research known as the Steele dosser that kicked off the Russia collusion scandal as legal compliance costs for her law firm.

The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), according to a letter made public last year.

The commission found the campaign and DNC had made over $1 million in total payments to the opposition research firm Fusion GPS through its law firm, tagging it as, "legal and compliance consulting" when in fact it was for research related to the dossier, according to the letter made public by the Coolidge and Reagan Foundation that filed the original complaint.

Investigators also "found probable cause to believe" the improper labeling of the payments violated federal election law and eventually reached an agreement.

 

[GURPS]

 

[seekeroftruth]

How do you know what you say is true because the news says it is

I "think" it's true based on 35 years of bookkeeping experience. AND.... I rarely watch just one news channel. I'm a retired bookkeeper and I gather facts. I base "my opinion" on that. If it had been coded differently, it would not have raised an eyebrow.

Paying off a whore is nothing new. They all do it, apparently. But posting an expense in such a way as to avoid paying taxes.... that's illegal.

I "think" it's illegal because any bookkeeper knows they can get in a lot of trouble for tax fraud. I just don't know committed the crime. I don't think they will find him guilty of this... unless he instructed them to do so, and they can prove it.

 

[GURPS]

But posting an expense in such a way as to avoid paying taxes.... that's illegal.

Avoid Paying Taxes ... so reimbursing his Atty is NOT a legal expense ?

 

[GURPS]

“From August 2015 to December 2017, the Defendant orchestrated a scheme with others to influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about him to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects,” the statement began. “In order to execute the unlawful scheme,” the summary continued, “the participants violated election laws and made and caused false entries in the business records of various entities in New York.”

But there is nothing unlawful about purchasing negative information to suppress its publication. Yet Bragg called that an “unlawful scheme.” And while the statement noted that the “other participants in the scheme admitted that the payoffs were unlawful,” Braggs did not say why the payments were illegal, or why it would be illegal for Trump to agree to the supposed “scheme.”

In fact, nowhere in either the Statement of the Facts nor the underlying indictment does Bragg identify the other crime Trump supposedly intended to commit. That omission is shocking because for Trump’s alleged falsifications of business records to qualify as felonies, as the indictment charged, the D.A. must prove Trump intended to commit (or conceal) another crime.

Trump Indictment Is More Pathetic Than We Could Have Dreamed

So weak are the charges, Bragg may be abandoned by other Democrats as they try to avoid the fallout from the political targeting of Trump.

thefederalist.com

 

[seekeroftruth]

Avoid Paying Taxes ... so reimbursing his Atty is NOT a legal expense ?

It's not what he paid.... it's how he had it posted. If he gave money to the lawyer for "services rendered" the tax burden is on the lawyer. But he included the payoff under the "services" and that is where the tax issue happened. If he somehow figured out how to pay the tax liabilities and kept it quiet... we wouldn't be having this discussion. It was a bookkeeping error. He did not withhold the "payoff" taxes.... giggle.



I don't understand why he felt he had to hide the use of a hooker. We all knew he is a pig.... we've known that since 1962.... he was running on being different. His mistake was trying to hide her. If he told the truth.... he could have done some damage control and it would have gone away. He didn't. I think that's where he made his blunder. You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear! He should have just stayed the course. He had already admitted he'd been grabbing pussy.

 

[Kyle]

He had already admitted he'd been grabbing pussy.

At this point I'm certain that every woman misquoting that line is just mad someone didn't grab theirs.

 

[RoseRed]

It's not what he paid.... it's how he had it posted. If he gave money to the lawyer for "services rendered" the tax burden is on the lawyer. But he included the payoff under the "services" and that is where the tax issue happened. If he somehow figured out how to pay the tax liabilities and kept it quiet... we wouldn't be having this discussion. It was a bookkeeping error. He did not withhold the "payoff" taxes.... giggle.



I don't understand why he felt he had to hide the use of a hooker. We all knew he is a pig.... we've known that since 1962.... he was running on being different. His mistake was trying to hide her. If he told the truth.... he could have done some damage control and it would have gone away. He didn't. I think that's where he made his blunder. You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear! He should have just stayed the course. He had already admitted he'd been grabbing pussy.

Your hatred is very unchristian.

 

[Loper]

Your hatred is very unchristian.

no kidding!!! that medical maryjane she's smoking must be some crazy sheot!!!

 

[RoseRed]

no kidding!!! that medical maryjane she's smoking must be some crazy sheot!!!

She comes across as an extremely bitter old biddy.

 

[Gilligan]

It's not what he paid.... it's how he had it posted. If he gave money to the lawyer for "services rendered" the tax burden is on the lawyer. But he included the payoff under the "services" and that is where the tax issue happened. If he somehow figured out how to pay the tax liabilities and kept it quiet... we wouldn't be having this discussion. It was a bookkeeping error. He did not withhold the "payoff" taxes.... giggle.

And here you are, thinking Trump makes entries in his books.

 

[Clem72]

At this point I'm certain that every woman misquoting that line is just mad someone didn't grab theirs.

You're right. The actual quote is worse. He said when you're a star you can do ANYTHING. Grab them by the pussy. Do Anything.

So how do you think he came to that conclusion, guessing? Or do you think he has seen and done a lot (likely more than just grabbing them) and concluded they will let him do "anything".