Trump verdict in

[bystander]

The first line is false. Trump didn’t personally do any of those things. Others did it.

Does the law cover ordering someone to do it? I guess it came down to whether or not Cohen would pay her out of the goodness of his heart because he was rabidly loyal to Trump. It would have to be his idea and it would have been a Christmas present.

Otherwise, it's a swearing match right? A convicted felon who admitted he lied versus a defendant who did not take the stand. Does the appellate court rule on that kind of circumstantial (believing in the witness in spite of character issues) evidence swaying the jury one way or the other? I would think not.

 

[bystander]

You know Forbes is now left wing?

I don't know that.

 

[bystander]

Did the DA present falsified business records as sworn evidence in the trial?

I wonder how many Liberals bashing Israel like Eisen on their side on this one.

 

[mchammer]

I don't know that.

It’s been captured by the left. No longer what you grew up with.

 

[mchammer]

 

[mchammer]

 

[mchammer]

Does the law cover ordering someone to do it? I guess it came down to whether or not Cohen would pay her out of the goodness of his heart because he was rabidly loyal to Trump. It would have to be his idea and it would have been a Christmas present.

Otherwise, it's a swearing match right? A convicted felon who admitted he lied versus a defendant who did not take the stand. Does the appellate court rule on that kind of circumstantial (believing in the witness in spite of character issues) evidence swaying the jury one way or the other? I would think not.

 

[bystander]

Not trying to be argumentative, but couldn't you say that about any precedent setting legal ruling? And just because it has never been charged, does that automatically follow that there is no possible violation that could ever occur?

I don't doubt the political angle from the standpoint of pursuing someone while ignoring someone else doing the same thing. But did he do it?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

But did he do it?

Did he do what?

 

[bystander]

Did he do what?

What they convicted him of doing, which in part, was to order Cohen to pay Daniels off because he was worried about the election.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

What they convicted him of doing, which in part, was to order Cohen to pay Daniels off because he was worried about the election.

That's not illegal.

 

[mchammer]

Not trying to be argumentative, but couldn't you say that about any precedent setting legal ruling? And just because it has never been charged, does that automatically follow that there is no possible violation that could ever occur?

I don't doubt the political angle from the standpoint of pursuing someone while ignoring someone else doing the same thing. But did he do it?

 

[mchammer]

 

[mchammer]

What they convicted him of doing, which in part, was to order Cohen to pay Daniels off because he was worried about the election.

The campaign, not Trump, agreed to a misdemeanor charge of not properly recording this payment. Even this is highly debatable among campaign finance laws. But making the payment is NOT illegal.

 

[mchammer]

From Forbes:

View attachment 9747

 

[mchammer]

I've been way too busy to closely follow the trial. I've covered dozens of criminal trials as a reporter/editor, served on criminal trial jurys and a grand jury. I developed an appreciation for the diligence and honor with which jurors approached their jobs. Are New Yorkers so different than Texans? Is it so hard to believe Donald Trump really violated laws or is the argument he, like Ken Paxton, is so great he should get away with it?

 

[mchammer]

 

[Horn6721]

mc
Damn going to be hard to gloss over your facts BUT TDS/Hatred is creative. It will be interesting to see the response to your links

 

[mb227]

To anyone wishing to respond: why do you think he is not guilty and do you believe he did not direct anyone to pay her off? In other words, do you think it wasn't proven or that he didn't do it or both?

It is not illegal to pay 'hush money.'

Further, ANYTHING coming from a convicted perjurer is simply not trustworthy.

 

[mchammer]

 

[mb227]

Buying ammo*

*for purely defensive purposes only

Remember always that the best defense is a good offense...and I enjoy a high caliber offense!

 

[bystander]

It is not illegal to pay 'hush money.'

Further, ANYTHING coming from a convicted perjurer is simply not trustworthy.

So you're saying a corporation can pay hush money and deduct in on it's tax return?

 

[mb227]

So you're saying a corporation can pay hush money and deduct in on it's tax return?

View attachment 9752

Tax law isn't my area, but what you posted the snippet of would suggest that any impropriety is by the Organization, NOT the individual.

DJT isn't an accountant. He didn't classify the expense. Signing a check is NOT the same as making the journal entry.

Corporations pay hush money all the time though, often with an NDA. The general public calls them settlements...

 

[mchammer]

 

[EDT]

 

[mchammer]

 

[mchammer]

 

[theiioftx]

Tax law isn't my area, but what you posted the snippet of would suggest that any impropriety is by the Organization, NOT the individual.

DJT isn't an accountant. He didn't classify the expense. Signing a check is NOT the same as making the journal entry.

Corporations pay hush money all the time though, often with an NDA. The general public calls them settlements...

I’ve seen hundreds of these over my career. Some actual incidents, but most were just allegations of discrimination. There is a whole industry of people who float job to job doing these. I was once an accountant and was signature on manual checks back in the day, but no idea how it was booked.

 

[Garmel]

Will a NY judge(s) be brave enough to overturn Trump's conviction?

 

[VYFan]

Can I take a moment to digress to a related—well, intertwined—issue that is extremely important?

It is the NYT vs Sullivan case, 1964.

The plot line after this MLK scenario was the the NYT ran an ad criticizing the public officials and police in Montgomery AL for arresting MLK on these felony charges. The statements were found by a local jury in Montgomery to be false, libelous, and they tagged NYT with a verdict that was large enough to threaten NYT’s continued existence.
The US Supreme Court, to preserve the well-respected NYT, and eliminate the verdict that seemed to unfairly project a local (and likely one-sided) jury’s opinion on the whole nation, changed the law regarding suing the media. From then on, actual malice must be shown to bring a case against any media outlet, making them essentially immune from facing any jury over lies they tell.
I’m not necessarily saying it was wrong, because it does expand first amendment protections, but at that time (and both my parents had Journalism degrees from UT) journalism had a prevailing professional ethic that restrained them. Over time, that ethic vanished, and we are now deeply in the problem that is the natural consequence. Everyone else in the country has to go to work and be non-negligent: doctors, lawyers, nurses, contractors, truck drivers—everyone except the media. They can say whatever they want and never have to look a jury in the eyes.
So, this kind of overreaching leads to bad consequences—overreaching to tag MLK with a felony, overreaching to have a local Alabama jury try to put the NYT out of business, overreaching by the USSCT to save the NYT with a rule that destroyed journalistic integrity.
Nothing good will ever come from this Trump trial.