I don't hate her, I just think she's a terrible lawyer.Gyles Marrett said:Don't understand some peoples hate for her....HTownAg98 said:Im Gipper said:Quote:
Trump has entered the courtroom ahead of today's proceedings.
Rick Scott is also here along with Boris Epshteyn and Alina Habba are also in the courtroom today
I wonder if Alina "fake it 'til you make it" Habba is going to try to enter something into evidence today.
*** Official Trump Hush Money Trial Thread ***
605,453 Views |
6827 Replies |
Last: 21 hrs ago by BMX Bandit
Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is asking Stormy Daniels about her appearance on reality show "The Surreal Life."
Necheles asked her to confirm that the story she wanted to share was that she "supposedly" had sex with Donald Trump.
"It was the full story about my life and what I went through because of this," Daniels answers.
I'm Gipper
Reread the bolded part. That's the point. Their system didn't have separate entry options for "legal fees" and "legal expenses". I completely stand by it's absurd the criticize that as the basis for a case to be made. Call it whatever you want, but only those that just want to see him in prison would make that case. The fact that was triggering proves that accurate.BMX Bandit said:STAFF: you deleted my post calling out those that just claim "TDS" every time they don't like something. look how quickly it showed up.Quote:
TDS: When you want Trump to go to jail because the word fees was used instead of expenses.
By definition a fee is an expense.
Again, please review the testimony about their accounting system and how it worked.
I don't want to Trump to go to jail.
in the legal worlds, fees and expenses are not the same thing. thats a fact. sorry that makes you mad.
I made no comment about that making Trump guilty of anything. the poster claiming it was "nonsense" was just wrong.
Definitely don't disagree! Seems her role has been set back to PR person which is more fitting than trial lawyer.HTownAg98 said:I don't hate her, I just think she's a terrible lawyer.Gyles Marrett said:Don't understand some peoples hate for her....HTownAg98 said:Im Gipper said:Quote:
Trump has entered the courtroom ahead of today's proceedings.
Rick Scott is also here along with Boris Epshteyn and Alina Habba are also in the courtroom today
I wonder if Alina "fake it 'til you make it" Habba is going to try to enter something into evidence today.
Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is asking Stormy Daniels about the advertising for the tour, specifically with a photo of Daniels and Trump from the golf course meeting.
Daniels raised her voice, "False, I have no control over how the club advertises."
The club flyer using the widespread photo of Daniels and Trump at the Lake Tahoe golf tournament advertised: "He saw her live. You can too!"
Necheles follows up and asks whether she was selling herself on her tour to people who hated Trump. "I was not selling myself to anyone. I was preforming at clubs and whoever wanted to pay admission," Daniels responds.
"The client at the clubs absolutely changed," Daniels says, but again argues she was not selling herself and "just did the same job I always did."
She testifies, "I never reposted anything that had this photo" and "I never used that tag line I hated it."
I'm Gipper
Quote:
rump attorney Susan Necheles has been pushing Stormy Daniels through a series of questions about the monetary arrangement for a documentary she made with NBC.
Necheles asks about the $100,000 Daniels received from the documentary, to which Daniels replies: "A lot of it was footage that I had to reimburse cameraman for."
They didn't have to "get me to cooperate," Daniels says of the filmmakers, "I started filming myself."
Necheles also asks Daniels whether she had an "affair" with one of the documentary producers. Hoffinger objects, but Merchan overrules, allowing her to answer.
Daniels says she was separated from her husband and did begin dating one of the cameramen on the film. She says he stopped filming once they began dating.
Necheles asks Daniels whether she's holding viewing parties at bars for the documentary and selling tickets.Daniels says she hasn't made any profit, that it's covering her travel and other expenses.Quote:
"So it's another way you're making money off the documentary and the story?" Necheles asks.
Quote:
The back-and-forth between Trump attorney Susan Necheles and Stormy Daniels continues.
As one point in the exchange while being questioned about the $100,000 Daniels made from a documentary with NBC, Daniels says, "You're trying to trick me into saying something that's not entirely true."
I'm Gipper
Fee - "a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services"
Expense - "the cost required for something; the money spent on something"
Trying to make the argument that a fee is not an expense is just flat out wrong...shows the extreme reach this case is trying to make.
Expense - "the cost required for something; the money spent on something"
Trying to make the argument that a fee is not an expense is just flat out wrong...shows the extreme reach this case is trying to make.
Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles wants to introduce another tweet where Stormy Daniels is responding to someone else's tweet.
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked to approach the bench. The objection was sustained.
Quote:
"When Trump was indicted in this case, you celebrated on Twitter by repeatedly tweeting and pushing merchandise you were selling in your store right?" defense attorney Susan Necheles asks Stormy Daniels.
"I tweeted about him being indicted, yes. People asked how they could support me so I tweeted the link to my store," Daniels said.
Nehecles is now showing the tweets to the jury she sent after the indictment, including the link to her store.
I'm Gipper
I never said "legal fees".TXAggie2011 said: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.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"?
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.)
It was categorized as a "legal expense" in the ledger.BMX Bandit said:every word of that is correct.captkirk said:Complete nonsense written by somebody that has no clue about how the world worksQuote:
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.
legal expenses are what you pay another party in a settlement, not legal fees
"Legal expense" was one of these categories in the Trump Organization's accounting system, according to evidence presented during the trial. McConney instructed an accountant to categorize the payments to Cohen as legal expenses "because we were paying a lawyer," he testified.
Quote:
Stormy Daniels confirms on the stand that she was drinking champagne celebrating Trump's indictment.
When Trump attorney Susan Necheles asks whether she's selling items in her story about how she got the president indicted, Daniels responds, "I got President Trump indicted?" raising the inflection in her voice to sound surprised.
Quote:
As Stormy Daniels testifies about the merchandise she sold after Trump's indictment, Trump is leaning forward on the defendant's table. He's got a frown on his face.
I'm Gipper
Gyles Marrett said:
Fee - "a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services"
Expense - "the cost required for something; the money spent on something"
Trying to make the argument that a fee is not an expense is just flat out wrong...shows the extreme reach this case is trying to make.
I said it was at least an accounting mistake. I have expressed over and over my doubt the state will prove criminal intent, despite folks repeatedly putting words in my mouth.
I'm not sure why the payment would be proper "legal expenses" or "legal fees" for the corporation. Routing personal expenses through a company to cover those personal, non-business expenses…you can't write those off.
Still, this doesn't come down to "fee" or "expense." It's about reporting campaign related money vs. treating as something not.
Quote:
Stormy Daniels turned a question around to highlight Donald Trump's own efforts to sell merchandise based on his criminal indictment.
"You're celebrating the indictment by selling things from your store?" Necheles asks.
"Not unlike Mr. Trump," Daniels responds.
Remember: The former president has turned his criminal indictments into fundraising opportunities, including in the form of t-shirts featuring his mug shot from his case in Georgia.
The merchandise in question: The defense has highlighted several items from Daniels' website for the jury, including a "Stormy Saint of Indictments" candle and #TeamStormy shirts.
Necheles asks whether Daniels is bragging with the candle that she got Trump indicted.
"No, I'm not bragging. I think it's funny," Daniels says.
There's also a $30 comic book called "Political Power: Stormy Daniels."
"Keep in mind I didn't write this comic book," Daniels says, laughing. But she confirms she's selling it.
Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is asking whether Stormy Daniels plans to keep making money off of Trump.
"I plan to continue to do my job and to fund my extraordinary legal bills," Daniels says.
Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is now going over Stormy Daniels' venture to create a show about the paranormal. She asks Daniels if she has claimed her house in New Orleans is haunted.
Daniels confirms the venture, adding they brought in experts.
"It was a lot of interesting and unexplained activity," she says. "A lot of the activity was completely debunked as a giant possum," she adds with a laugh.
I'm Gipper
Anyway, back to the trial coverage. Daniels is the absolute definition of an unreliable, biased witness.
Quote:
Daniels says her effort to sell merchandise based on indictment is "not unlike Mr. Trump" himself
Stormy Daniels turned a question around to highlight Donald Trump's own efforts to sell merchandise based on his criminal indictment.
"You're celebrating the indictment by selling things from your store?" Necheles asks.
"Not unlike Mr. Trump," Daniels responds.
Remember: The former president has turned his criminal indictments into fundraising opportunities, including in the form of t-shirts featuring his mug shot from his case in Georgia.
The merchandise in question: The defense has highlighted several items from Daniels' website for the jury, including a "Stormy Saint of Indictments" candle and #TeamStormy shirts.
Necheles asks whether Daniels is bragging with the candle that she got Trump indicted.
"No, I'm not bragging. I think it's funny," Daniels says.
There's also a $30 comic book called "Political Power: Stormy Daniels."
"Keep in mind I didn't write this comic book," Daniels says, laughing. But she confirms she's selling it.
…who is also crazy.Quote:
Daniels confirms she was drinking champagne celebrating Trump's indictment
Stormy Daniels confirms on the stand that she was drinking champagne celebrating Trump's indictment.
When Trump attorney Susan Necheles asks whether she's selling items in her story about how she got the president indicted, Daniels responds, "I got President Trump indicted?" raising the inflection in her voice to sound surprised.
Quote:
Daniels confirms she tried to make a show about the paranormal
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is now going over Stormy Daniels' venture to create a show about the paranormal. She asks Daniels if she has claimed her house in New Orleans is haunted.
Daniels confirms the venture, adding they brought in experts.
"It was a lot of interesting and unexplained activity," she says. "A lot of the activity was completely debunked as a giant possum," she adds with a laugh.
Wasn't there testimony that the money came from his trust and not out of the company?TXAggie2011 said:Gyles Marrett said:
Fee - "a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services"
Expense - "the cost required for something; the money spent on something"
Trying to make the argument that a fee is not an expense is just flat out wrong...shows the extreme reach this case is trying to make.
I said it was at least an accounting mistake. I have expressed over and over my doubt the state will prove criminal intent, despite folks repeatedly putting words in my mouth.
I'm not even sure why the payment would be proper "legal expenses" or "legal fees" for the corporation. Routing personal expenses through a company to cover those personal, non-business expenses…you can't write those off.
Still, this doesn't come down to "fee" or "expense." It's about reporting campaign related money vs. treating as something not.
and yes I know the case doesn't come down to the wording, there was earlier comments that that difference is wording was the problem for him. But again, there's already been testimony that their antiquated system recorded anything to a lawyer as legal fees and that Trump didn't direct anyone to record it any which way. So if it was an incorrect way for it to be recorded Trump at fault for it seems a big reach.
True about the write offs. I suspect if that was an issue done incorrectly the prosecution I'm sure has already been through his tax returns and would make a point out of that. Haven't seen that argument brought up. In the case yet.
Apology to BMX.
BMX is drawing a distinction I'm not sure I agree with. Legal "fees", legal "expenses", payments under a NDA aren't for Michael Cohen's fees/salary for performing legal work.
Nor would they seem to me to be a settlement payout, some of which are tax deductible, some of which are not.
Nor would they seem to me to be a settlement payout, some of which are tax deductible, some of which are not.
Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is asking Stormy Daniels about her history making porn movies.
"You have a lot of experience of making phony stories about sex appear to be real," Necheles says.
"Wow," Daniels says with a pause. "That's not how I would put it. The sex in the films is very much real just like what happened to me in that room."
They're sparring over whether Daniels made up the story with Donald Trump.
"If that story was untrue, I would have written it to be a lot better," Daniels said.
Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is challenging Stormy Daniels on the specific description she gave of the floors of Trump's hotel room that she testified to earlier during direct examination.
"That had been part of your prep. That you were supposed to include certain details in your testimony, right?" Necheles asks, calling out a moment when prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked Daniels if she mentioned the tile floors.
Necheles says that Daniels' story "has changed a lot over the years, right?" "No," Daniels responds.
I'm Gipper
Has it even been raised that the payment was incorrectly taken as a tax deduction? That seems to be a new idea I haven't seen the prosecution raise.TXAggie2011 said:
BMX is drawing a distinction I'm not sure I agree with. Legal "fees", legal "expenses", payments under a NDA aren't for Michael Cohen's fees/salary for performing legal work.
Nor would they seem to me to be a settlement payout, some of which are tax deductible, some of which are not.
Quote:
Judge Juan Merchan just told Trump lawyer Susan Necheles to give Stormy Daniels time to answer each question.
The two are going back and forth so quickly they're stepping on each other's sentences.
Necheles has been pressing Daniels, and Daniels often pushes back on the attorney's account of events.
I'm Gipper
Man, how many hours and days did they prep Stormy ?
Gyles Marrett said:Has it even been raised that the payment was incorrectly taken as a tax deduction? That seems to be a new idea I haven't seen the prosecution raise.TXAggie2011 said:
BMX is drawing a distinction I'm not sure I agree with. Legal "fees", legal "expenses", payments under a NDA aren't for Michael Cohen's fees/salary for performing legal work.
Nor would they seem to me to be a settlement payout, some of which are tax deductible, some of which are not.
The State's Statement of Facts started by saying they were doing this in part for tax reasons in addition to campaign financing/election law reasons, but they've focused on and have moved forward with focusing on the election-related issues
If you want to piss off a court reporter, this is how you piss off a court reporter.Im Gipper said:Quote:
Judge Juan Merchan just told Trump lawyer Susan Necheles to give Stormy Daniels time to answer each question.
The two are going back and forth so quickly they're stepping on each other's sentences.
Necheles has been pressing Daniels, and Daniels often pushes back on the attorney's account of events.
legal EXPENSES...Gyles Marrett said:Wasn't there testimony that the money came from his trust and not out of the company?TXAggie2011 said:Gyles Marrett said:
Fee - "a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services"
Expense - "the cost required for something; the money spent on something"
Trying to make the argument that a fee is not an expense is just flat out wrong...shows the extreme reach this case is trying to make.
I said it was at least an accounting mistake. I have expressed over and over my doubt the state will prove criminal intent, despite folks repeatedly putting words in my mouth.
I'm not even sure why the payment would be proper "legal expenses" or "legal fees" for the corporation. Routing personal expenses through a company to cover those personal, non-business expenses…you can't write those off.
Still, this doesn't come down to "fee" or "expense." It's about reporting campaign related money vs. treating as something not.
and yes I know the case doesn't come down to the wording, there was earlier comments that that difference is wording was the problem for him. But again, there's already been testimony that their antiquated system recorded anything to a lawyer as legal fees and that Trump didn't direct anyone to record it any which way. So if it was an incorrect way for it to be recorded Trump at fault for it seems a big reach.
True about the write offs. I suspect if that was an issue done incorrectly the prosecution I'm sure has already been through his tax returns and would make a point out of that. Haven't seen that argument brought up. In the case yet.
Apology to BMX.
That's how their antiquated system recorded it.
NOT legal FEES.
Just for clarification.
Give her props she is an expert with her mouth. She needs no training.GenericAggie said:
Man, how many hours and days did they prep Stormy ?
The invoice Cohen provided did not break things down into categories, fwiw. How is the person recording the amount in the ledger supposed to know how much went for legal FEES and how much went to a payout? Or, even that there WAS a payout?TXAggie2011 said:
BMX is drawing a distinction I'm not sure I agree with. Legal "fees", legal "expenses", payments under a NDA aren't for Michael Cohen's fees/salary for performing legal work.
Nor would they seem to me to be a settlement payout, some of which are tax deductible, some of which are not.
Quote:
Wasn't there testimony that the money came from his trust and not out of the company?
At least some of it did, yes, I think I saw that. But the Trump Organization was accounting for these payments in their own ledgers and accounting statements and that's the records at issue.
I'm not trust and estates and whatever expert it obviously it's a little bit of a messier and different set up than your normal trust
Yes, true...which seems even more reasonable than recording as fees....Ag with kids said:legal EXPENSES...Gyles Marrett said:Wasn't there testimony that the money came from his trust and not out of the company?TXAggie2011 said:Gyles Marrett said:
Fee - "a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services"
Expense - "the cost required for something; the money spent on something"
Trying to make the argument that a fee is not an expense is just flat out wrong...shows the extreme reach this case is trying to make.
I said it was at least an accounting mistake. I have expressed over and over my doubt the state will prove criminal intent, despite folks repeatedly putting words in my mouth.
I'm not even sure why the payment would be proper "legal expenses" or "legal fees" for the corporation. Routing personal expenses through a company to cover those personal, non-business expenses…you can't write those off.
Still, this doesn't come down to "fee" or "expense." It's about reporting campaign related money vs. treating as something not.
and yes I know the case doesn't come down to the wording, there was earlier comments that that difference is wording was the problem for him. But again, there's already been testimony that their antiquated system recorded anything to a lawyer as legal fees and that Trump didn't direct anyone to record it any which way. So if it was an incorrect way for it to be recorded Trump at fault for it seems a big reach.
True about the write offs. I suspect if that was an issue done incorrectly the prosecution I'm sure has already been through his tax returns and would make a point out of that. Haven't seen that argument brought up. In the case yet.
Apology to BMX.
That's how their antiquated system recorded it.
NOT legal FEES.
Just for clarification.
They're reaching for every straw available....so if they've moved on to a new focus you can make a quite reasonable conclusion there is no tax law issue.TXAggie2011 said:Gyles Marrett said:Has it even been raised that the payment was incorrectly taken as a tax deduction? That seems to be a new idea I haven't seen the prosecution raise.TXAggie2011 said:
BMX is drawing a distinction I'm not sure I agree with. Legal "fees", legal "expenses", payments under a NDA aren't for Michael Cohen's fees/salary for performing legal work.
Nor would they seem to me to be a settlement payout, some of which are tax deductible, some of which are not.
The State's Statement of Facts started by saying they were doing this in part for tax reasons in addition to campaign financing/election law reasons, but they've focused on and have moved forward with focusing on the election-related issues
They are hoping for anything.
I got behind! Sorry! Duty called!
I'm Gipper
Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles asks whether she made "a big deal" about not getting dinner when going to Donald Trump's hotel room.
"I went to dinner and didn't get dinner," Daniels says.
Necheles is reading a few different interview accounts from over the the years, including Daniels telling Jimmy Kimmel she was "very food-motivated," so she stayed in the hotel room because she was holding out for dinner.
Necheles then asks whether Daniels said the opposite in her 2011 InTouch interview.
"I never said we ate," Daniels says. Necheles is now bringing up the article for Daniels to review.
Daniels defends herself: "My story's the same."
"I've maintained that I didn't see any food," Daniels. "It was dinner but we never got food."
"All of these interviews I would have talked about the food," Daniels adds.
Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is now pressing Stormy Daniels about her 2018 interview with Anderson Cooper.
During the interview, Cooper asks Daniels if they went out for dinner. She says no. He asks if they had dinner in the room. She says yes. Daniels says it was dinner time but they didn't eat dinner."Your words don't mean what they say, do they?" Necheles asks. Judge Juan Merchan then sustained an objection.Quote:
"We did not have any food. I did not eat any food. I maintain that in every interview. That has not changed," Daniels says.
"When you said to Anderson Cooper you didn't really mean you had dinner, you meant something else?" Necheles asks.
"We had dinner time in the room," Daniels said.
Quote:
Trump attorney Necheles is now moving on to questions about whether Stormy Daniels walked to the hotel or took a car.
"The details of your story keep changing, right?" Necheles asks.
"No," Daniels says. She testifies she took a car from a tattoo shop to Trump's hotel, and says "I don't know how a car was called."
Quote:
Trump lawyer Susan Necheles is now focusing on what happened when Stormy Daniels entered the hotel room, questioning that she has said Donald Trump was sprawled out on the couch watching television and that he greeted her.
"He did both. He greeted me in the foyer. I assumed he was watching television because he definitely wasn't getting dressed," Daniels responds.
Necheles asks why she didn't say that in the 2011 InTouch interview.
"No, I did not. Like I said, it was a shorter interview," Daniels says.
I'm Gipper
Gyles Marrett said:They're reaching for every straw available....so if they've moved on to a new focus you can make a quite reasonable conclusion there is no tax law issue.TXAggie2011 said:Gyles Marrett said:Has it even been raised that the payment was incorrectly taken as a tax deduction? That seems to be a new idea I haven't seen the prosecution raise.TXAggie2011 said:
BMX is drawing a distinction I'm not sure I agree with. Legal "fees", legal "expenses", payments under a NDA aren't for Michael Cohen's fees/salary for performing legal work.
Nor would they seem to me to be a settlement payout, some of which are tax deductible, some of which are not.
The State's Statement of Facts started by saying they were doing this in part for tax reasons in addition to campaign financing/election law reasons, but they've focused on and have moved forward with focusing on the election-related issues
Well, I don't think it's a "new focus". They always framed it around election issues. They also talked about the tax motivations in the Statement of Facts and it certainly raises some questions there but they've moved forward and focused on the election stuff since the indictment.
This is all about intent. Who knew what and when did they know it, and what motivated them.
Quote:
Trump lawyer Susan Necheles is suggesting that Stormy Daniels sees naked men and women in these movies all the time, questioning whether it was surprising to her to see a man in boxer shorts and a T-shirt to the point she felt like she was going to faint.
Daniels is pushing back, saying, "If I came out of the bathroom and saw an older man in his underwear that I wasn't expecting to see there, yeah."
Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is continuing to press Stormy Daniels on the hotel room encounter.
"This wasn't the first time in your life someone made a pass at you," Necheles says.
"No, but it is the first time they had a bodyguard standing outside the door," Daniels says. She adds that Trump was twice her age and bigger than her.
Quote:
Susan Necheles is now confronting Stormy Daniels with what she told InTouch in 2011 about the encounter with Donald Trump.
In that article, Daniels said Trump told her "come here" and they started kissing on the bed. Daniels confirms Trump did say "come here."Necheles says that Daniels didn't say Trump stood up in the InTouch interview. "This is an abbreviated version," Daniels reiterates, also saying she wasn't trying to get money at the time.Quote:
"You made all this up, right?" Necheles asks.
"No," says Daniels.
"Quote:
Trump attorney Susan Necheles is now focusing on a 2018 interview with Slate, asking Stormy Daniels whether she told the publication "there was no abuse with what happened with President Trump and you were not a victim."
"Yes," Daniels says.
In that interview, Necheles says that Daniels said the worst thing Trump did was "break promises he never believed he would fulfill," including buying her a condo in Florida and getting her on the Celebrity Apprentice.
"You didn't say anything about feeling faint, when this happened?" Necheles asks, of her alleged sexual encounter with Trump.
"No, because the question was (about) what Mr. Trump did. And Mr. Trump did not drug me. That was how I felt," Daniels responds.
Necheles has also asked about whether Daniels described a power imbalance, or being scared because of a body guard, in her previous recounting of the story.
Daniels says she maintains, "I was not physically threatened or drugged.
I'm Gipper
Quote:
Defense attorney Susan Necheles is asking Stormy Daniels about her testimony on Tuesday when Daniels said Trump's actions made her feel like she had to have sex with him.
"My own insecurities made me feel that way," Daniels says.Quote:
She went on, "He did not put his hands on me. He did not give me any sort of drugs or alcohol and he did not hold a weapon or hold me or threaten me."
Court now on break. Whew!Quote:
Defense attorney Susan Necheles is questioning why Stormy Daniels didn't say that Donald Trump stood in front of her in a 2018 Vogue interview.
Necheles again says, "Your story has completely changed."
With a look of exasperation and a smile, Daniels raises her voice saying, "No!"
"You're trying to make me say that it changed but it hasn't changed," she says.
I'm Gipper
Sorry, I am behind.
So Stormy's story is that she wanted to get the story out, but signed an NDA because it gave her the most money for NOT being able to get the story out?
And it wasn't about the money.
So Stormy's story is that she wanted to get the story out, but signed an NDA because it gave her the most money for NOT being able to get the story out?
And it wasn't about the money.
How should it have been recorded to correct the accounting mistake?TXAggie2011 said:Gyles Marrett said:
Fee - "a payment made to a professional person or to a professional or public body in exchange for advice or services"
Expense - "the cost required for something; the money spent on something"
Trying to make the argument that a fee is not an expense is just flat out wrong...shows the extreme reach this case is trying to make.
I said it was at least an accounting mistake. I have expressed over and over my doubt the state will prove criminal intent, despite folks repeatedly putting words in my mouth.
I'm not sure why the payment would be proper "legal expenses" or "legal fees" for the corporation. Routing personal expenses through a company to cover those personal, non-business expenses…you can't write those off.
Still, this doesn't come down to "fee" or "expense." It's about reporting campaign related money vs. treating as something not.
NDAs are not illegal. Individuals and companies, especially single owner companies, enter NDAs with regularity.
Featured Stories
See All
Ags host Buckeyes with an early-season Quad 1 opportunity at stake
by Olin Buchanan
Players to Watch: No. 15 Texas A&M vs. New Mexico State
by Olin Buchanan
8:22
14h ago
1.6k
34:11
9h ago
679
Reed Report: Preparing for Friday's marquee showdown vs. Ohio State
by Luke Evangelist
Bid on Legacy Club tickets to Saturday's Texas A&M vs. NMSU game!
by Texas Aggies United