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.

---

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.

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

TXAggie2011 said:

---

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

---

I was specifically addressing your really bad analogy.

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?

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.

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.

---

A campaign contribution from Michael Cohen and/or the Trump Organization.

And its already been litigated that the state can use FECA as an underlying crime here.

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?

The campaign contribution theory is nonsense also because it is using the act to define itself. The campaign contribution "crime" would be the bookkeeping of the payments improperly. So they are saying the improper bookkeeping was to coverup the improper bookkeeping.

This entire thing is nonsense. Reasonable doubt is literally built in to the allegations. The state can't even say beyond a reasonable doubt what crime Trump "intended" to coverup. No way they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt Trump intended to coverup "well we don't know what, but it was something."

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?

---

They are allowed to bring in general evidence about the FEC, what it does, and some of the technical stuff like what the FEC considers a "campaign contribution."

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."

---

This is a bit of a social media red herring. The Trump legal team actually said early on they didn't intend to introduce the FEC or SDNY investigation as evidence unless the Prosecution tried to introduce Michael Cohen's guilty pleas. Those guilty pleas are also not allowed.

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.

---

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Just-Security-NY-2016-Election-Interference-Case-Clearinghouse-Order-on-State-of-New-York-motions-in-limine-March-18-2024.pdf

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.

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.

---

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. Then, when Trump reimbursed him and labeled it as a legal expense, then Trump was helping to cover up Cohen's crime. 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:

---

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.

---

It can be your crime, it can be someone else's crime.

You just have to have the intent to commit, aid, or conceal a crime, whoever's crime it is.

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...

---

There were some chaotic moments within the Trump Org when trump left for DC and new procedures were needed. Don, Jr. Eric and Alan Wesselberg were in charge of the trust (and expenses needed two of those three as countersignatures) and the Trump Org.

Some things that were personal expenses still needed DJT's signature however and the checks were sent to him at the WH.

As to the Cohen disbursements, those were approved by those three to be paid pursuant to conversations between Cohen and Wesselberg.

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.

---

Thank you for the explanation. Do you know if the defense is allowed to opine or mention about entering an NDA for protecting your family, vice benefiting a campaign?

I've been under the assumption that it's generally permitted for politicians to enter into NDAs if it's for the purpose of shielding their families as long as personal finances (and not campaign funds) are used.

bobbranco said:

---

You are full of it.

---

Big time reaching for straws

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?

---

This is more like your uber driver from the day after getting charged and the robbers turned on them to avoid their own charges. They paid for the ride with illicit funds because they had the bank funds in their possession but they used a credit card.

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."

---

Wrong.

She was there because it was another opportunity for a partisan DA to have a partisan judge take two days to smear Donald Trump's reputation with the salacious details of an encounter she had so she could get on a TV show but since she never did has sworn on multiple occasions that never happened.

Now that her personal legal crusade against Donald Trump backfired with her owing him $560,000, Bragg & Co. were confident she could help sway to the jury that Donald Trump is a horrible person, implying that he sexually assaulted her.

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.

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.

---

IF that's the second crime -- nobody actually knows -- it's outside the jurisdiction of the New York district attorney's office and therefore the indictment should be tossed.

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..

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:

---

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..

---

I hope someone on the jury has your ethics and fortitude hawg. This is a sham.

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 Cohen earlier as Steve Dallas from Bloom County.

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

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."

---

One of my favorites.

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.

---

Yeah, I can see the philosophical angle and the legal theory to say WHY the case is plausible, but to step back from that and look at it from reality, this is a disgrace to the legal profession and should be a complete embarrassment.

Shouldn't be that hard to admit.

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"?

---

An NDA is a contract. Payments made to another party per a contract aren't "legal fees." Legal fees are what you paid the lawyer to negotiate and draft the contract.

Mike Elko's salary isn't "legal fees" for A&M even though its a payment per a written contract negotiated and drafted by lawyers. Or, more analogous, Jimbo Fisher's payout isn't "legal fees" even though A&M's lawyers negotiated a contract for Jimbo to not coach.

Lets say you owned a trucking business and you had a contract to lease 50 trucks for $XXXX per month, which you're lawyer negotiated. Those monthly payments aren't legal fees, even though it was negotiated by a lawyer.

If at least some of the payments marked as legal fees weren't actually for legal services, but were actually for Stormy Daniels or to reimburse Cohen for paying Stormy Daniels, then they at least were making an accounting mistake, even if the state doesn't prove a crime.

(***With the obvious exception of payments to a lawyer per a contract for legal services would be legal fees.)

So, in your view, what is the correct, non-fraudulent way to report this payment?

PSA. I'll be late tomorrow. Can't be helped. Medical issues.

CNN/politics/Donald Trump/ live feed if someone wants to cover that. TIA.

Sorry.

[Make a counter-argument without personal insults or just don't post a comment. -Staff]

Quote:

---

I'm optimistic that the entire jury sees right through this nonsense -- ESPECIALLY the two attorneys on the case

---

Your belief that attorneys could see through the nonsense any better than a layman is amusing

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Bradley Smith is allowed to testify. The Court said he wouldn't be allowed to testify on matters of law to the jury (same thing happened in federal court) and that he lacked personal knowledge about the facts of this case so he would need to be limited to testifying about only certain things.

---

Which leads me to this question. Who is going to testify as to facts that would consitute a violation of federal election law? Cohen? A. he's disbarred. B. he cannot draw a legal conclusion. C. he was Trump's legal advisor at the time.

So Cohen will get on the stand and say Trump did these things pursuant to his own counsel? LOL.

---

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

---

There is no federal charge.

---

A violation of "federal election law" is not a federal charge?

---

Trump's not charged with violating a federal law, no.

The limits of using predicate federal crimes has been well litigated over the years as to this particular law and others.

I don't even think Trump's team has argued New York simply cannot use federal law as a predicate crime simply because it is federal. They tried to get the federal crime thrown aside for much nerdier and complex reasons.

---

it's always great when f16 tells us how something is illegal or unconstitutional when the Trump lawyers aren't even making the claims in court.

Stop...just...stop.