|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 15, 2024 16:29:05 GMT
Where is the law that says the NDA with Stormy was illegal? Where is the law that says reimbursing Cohen was illegal? Where can I read those non-existent statutes? the answers to those questions have already been provided in articles you refuse to look at Not a single one of your articles cited the statutes for the 'other' crime. |
|
|
|
Post by poutinep on Apr 15, 2024 16:46:37 GMT
the answers to those questions have already been provided in articles you refuse to look at Not a single one of your articles cited the statutes for the 'other' crime.
According to Cohen, he regularly apprised Trump about the negotiations with Davidson, and Trump agreed that Clifford should be paid the $130,000 in exchange for entering into the nondisclosure agreement that would prevent her from discussing the alleged affair.11 Cohen testified that Trump directed him to make the payment12 and that Trump asked Cohen and Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization, LLC’s (“Trump Organization”) Chief Financial Officer, to “figure out how” to do so.13 According to Cohen’s testimony before Congress, the proposal to make the payment himself and later be reimbursed, designed to hide the source of the funds, was approved by Trump.14 Given these facts, the Commission’s Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”) recommended
finding reason to believe that Cohen and the Trump Organization made, and Trump and Donald J.
Trump for President, Inc. (the “Committee”) accepted and failed to report, illegal contributions.15
The Act prohibits making, or knowingly accepting, a campaign contribution in excess of the
contribution limits set forth under the Act.16 In 2016, the inflation-adjusted contribution limit for an 5 See First Gen. Counsel’s Report in MURs 7313, 7319, and 7379 (Michael D. Cohen, et al.) (“FGCR”) at 11 and internal citations. 6 See id. at 12 (citing, inter alia, Hearing with Michael Cohen, Former Attorney to President Donald Trump Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Reform, 116th Cong. 116-03, 34 (Feb. 27, 2019), docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20190227/108969/HHRG-116-GO00-20190227-SD003.pdf (“House Oversight Testimony”)). 7 See FGCR at 11 and internal citations. 8 See FGCR at 17 (citing House Oversight Testimony at 135, 13). 9 See FGCR at 19 (citing House Oversight Testimony at 14, 22, 120-21, 151). 10 See FGCR at 17 (citing House Oversight Testimony at 135). 11 See FGCR at 13 (citing, inter alia, House Oversight Testimony at 22). 12 See FGCR at 13 (citing Cohen Plea Hearing at 23; House Oversight Testimony at 13 (“Mr. Trump directed me to use my own personal funds from a home equity line of credit to avoid any money being traced back to him that could negatively impact his campaign.”)). 13 See FGCR at 14 (citing House Oversight Testimony at 22). 14 See FGCR at 14 (citing House Oversight Testimony at 135-36) (“Ms. KELLY. Did Mr. Trump know you were going through this process to hide the payment? Mr. COHEN. Yes. . . . Ms. KELLY. And did Mr. Trump know about this reimbursement method? Mr. COHEN. Oh, he knew about everything, yes. Ms. KELLY. Well, thank you, Mr. Cohen. So the President not only knew about the payments, he knew and helped to hide the payments and the reimbursements to you. Mr. COHEN. We discussed it. Everything had to go through Mr. Trump, and it had to be approved by Mr. Trump.”). 15 See FGCR at 27-28. 16 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A), (f). The Act also prohibits corporate contributions. 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a). It is unclear if
the Trump Organization is taxed as a corporation or an LLC. See FGCR at 53-54
Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to five counts of tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014, two counts of making unlawful campaign contributions in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(1)(A), and one count of making a false statement to the Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), and was sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release.
The NDA was illegal due to the timing with the election, and that's why trump didn't try to enforce it. It was illegal to pay her not to say something that would influence the election, NDA or no.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel ♀︎ on Apr 15, 2024 16:47:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 15, 2024 16:49:34 GMT
The masturbatory rantings of certain TrumpCult dupes aside: this one is by far the most difficult of DJT's criminal cases, from both a factual and legal perspective, for the prosecution. There are a lot of elements to prove, and any failed linkage means Trump walks. It would not shock me if this was a case of the DA trying to turn a single into a double.
|
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 15, 2024 16:51:40 GMT
Just a reminder for everyone that Trump is being falsely charged in a kangaroo court for a perfectly legal NDA so that the dems can corruptly and criminally interfere with the 2024 election. Not one liberal can cite the statute that says the NDA payments were in any way illegal. This is sham trial that will be overturned on appeal, but liberals are trying to steal the election by cementing in people's minds that Trump is a criminal, when in fact no crime was committed. Just a reminder that you need to clean up after doing this much self-stroking. |
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 15, 2024 16:56:10 GMT
Not a single one of your articles cited the statutes for the 'other' crime.
According to Cohen, he regularly apprised Trump about the negotiations with Davidson, and Trump agreed that Clifford should be paid the $130,000 in exchange for entering into the nondisclosure agreement that would prevent her from discussing the alleged affair.11 Cohen testified that Trump directed him to make the payment12 and that Trump asked Cohen and Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization, LLC’s (“Trump Organization”) Chief Financial Officer, to “figure out how” to do so.13 According to Cohen’s testimony before Congress, the proposal to make the payment himself and later be reimbursed, designed to hide the source of the funds, was approved by Trump.14 Given these facts, the Commission’s Office of the General Counsel (“OGC”) recommended
finding reason to believe that Cohen and the Trump Organization made, and Trump and Donald J.
Trump for President, Inc. (the “Committee”) accepted and failed to report, illegal contributions.15
The Act prohibits making, or knowingly accepting, a campaign contribution in excess of the
contribution limits set forth under the Act.16 In 2016, the inflation-adjusted contribution limit for an 5 See First Gen. Counsel’s Report in MURs 7313, 7319, and 7379 (Michael D. Cohen, et al.) (“FGCR”) at 11 and internal citations. 6 See id. at 12 (citing, inter alia, Hearing with Michael Cohen, Former Attorney to President Donald Trump Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Reform, 116th Cong. 116-03, 34 (Feb. 27, 2019), docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20190227/108969/HHRG-116-GO00-20190227-SD003.pdf (“House Oversight Testimony”)). 7 See FGCR at 11 and internal citations. 8 See FGCR at 17 (citing House Oversight Testimony at 135, 13). 9 See FGCR at 19 (citing House Oversight Testimony at 14, 22, 120-21, 151). 10 See FGCR at 17 (citing House Oversight Testimony at 135). 11 See FGCR at 13 (citing, inter alia, House Oversight Testimony at 22). 12 See FGCR at 13 (citing Cohen Plea Hearing at 23; House Oversight Testimony at 13 (“Mr. Trump directed me to use my own personal funds from a home equity line of credit to avoid any money being traced back to him that could negatively impact his campaign.”)). 13 See FGCR at 14 (citing House Oversight Testimony at 22). 14 See FGCR at 14 (citing House Oversight Testimony at 135-36) (“Ms. KELLY. Did Mr. Trump know you were going through this process to hide the payment? Mr. COHEN. Yes. . . . Ms. KELLY. And did Mr. Trump know about this reimbursement method? Mr. COHEN. Oh, he knew about everything, yes. Ms. KELLY. Well, thank you, Mr. Cohen. So the President not only knew about the payments, he knew and helped to hide the payments and the reimbursements to you. Mr. COHEN. We discussed it. Everything had to go through Mr. Trump, and it had to be approved by Mr. Trump.”). 15 See FGCR at 27-28. 16 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(A), (f). The Act also prohibits corporate contributions. 52 U.S.C. § 30118(a). It is unclear if
the Trump Organization is taxed as a corporation or an LLC. See FGCR at 53-54
Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to five counts of tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014, two counts of making unlawful campaign contributions in violation of 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(1)(A), and one count of making a false statement to the Congress in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), and was sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment and 3 years of supervised release.
The NDA was illegal due to the timing with the election, and that's why trump didn't try to enforce it. It was illegal to pay her not to say something that would influence the election, NDA or no.
NDAs are perfectly legal, including during elections, and there is no limit on a candidate spending his own money on his own campaign. You just cited non-crimes. "It was illegal to pay her not to say something that would influence the election" Where does the law say that? |
|
|
|
Post by jimmywynn on Apr 15, 2024 16:58:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel ♀︎ on Apr 15, 2024 17:02:06 GMT
Someone needs his nap.
|
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 15, 2024 17:03:34 GMT
It is that short attention span kicking in again. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Apr 15, 2024 17:47:31 GMT
What is the second crime? Where can I read the statute? The second crime, call it the "predicate", seems to be a smorgasbord of crimes that NY State law allows Bragg to present to the jury without having to specify in the indictment beforehand. I'm guessing that the reason is that Trump is not actually being charged with the predicate crime. Here's a layout of it: The statute requires the falsification of a business record with intent to defraud, and it requires that the falsification be part of an attempt to commit another crime, to aid another crime, or to conceal another crime. For the ease of explanation, call the referenced crime the criminal “predicate.”
The indictment identifies thirty-four falsified business records, but it didn’t indicate what the criminal predicates were, because New York law doesn’t require that it do so. But some clues about the predicates can be found in the 13-page Statement of Facts that accompanied the indictment, as well as from Bragg’s comments in a press conference following the arraignment.
The statement creates certain inferences about the predicates. Generally speaking, the statement describes an “unlawful scheme” designed to “influence the 2016 presidential election by identifying and purchasing negative information about [Trump] to suppress its publication and benefit the Defendant’s electoral prospects.” In short, the DA alleges what the popular press calls a catch-and-kill scheme, which itself consists of more specific unlawful activity. The scheme itself was illegal, says the indictment and accompanying statement, as was much of the activity used to effectuate it. Some combination of the activity used to effectuate the scheme and the scheme itself predicates each of the thirty-four charges under § 175.10. The second paragraph of the indictment indicates that the predicating criminality includes (1) violations of “election laws” and (2) violations associated with “mischaracterize[ing], for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments[.]” The third paragraph makes clear that the election law predicates include Michael Cohen’s federal conviction for “making an illegal campaign contribution.” In paragraphs 41 through 44, the statement alleges that Cohen worked with Trump and American Media Inc. (AMI), the parent company of the National Enquirer, to effectuate the scheme. Those paragraphs also recite AMI’s agreement that it purchased the salacious stories without ever having intended to publish them.
The Bragg press conference provided some additional clues about the predicates. Bragg repeatedly emphasized that the § 175.10 offense was concealment of prior criminality: “That is exactly what this case is about. Thirty-four false statements made to cover up other crimes.” Bragg’s prepared remarks detailed the catch-and-kill scheme generally, and suggested the DA’s view that the scheme or its parts violated several different criminal laws: (1) New York Election Law § 17-152, making it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means; (2) federal limits on campaign contributions (federal election law); (3) New York laws violated by false statements on AMI’s books; and (4) tax laws violated by a mischaracterization someone made or planned to make to taxing authorities.
The major point is this: Bragg is sketching a lot of different predicates involving a lot of different people. Importantly, the predicates do not have to be crimes committed by Trump; they can be crimes committed by Cohen, AMI, or someone else. So the universe of predicates might look something like a 2x2x2 grid: (1) federal tax law violations by Trump; (2) federal tax law violations by third parties; (3) New York tax law violations by Trump; (4) New York tax law violations by third parties; (5) federal election law violation by Trump; (6) federal election law violations by third parties; (7) New York Election Law § 17-152 violations by Trump; and (8) § 17-152 violations by third parties. The list is a touch under-inclusive, because it doesn’t capture the possibility that AMI’s false statements violated some other provision of New York law, which is something that Bragg alluded to several times in his remarks.www.lawfaremedia.org/article/preemption-and-known-unknowns-trump-indictment |
|
|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Apr 15, 2024 17:48:35 GMT
Just a reminder for everyone that Trump is being falsely charged in a kangaroo court for a perfectly legal NDA so that the dems can corruptly and criminally interfere with the 2024 election. Not one liberal can cite the statute that says the NDA payments were in any way illegal. This is sham trial that will be overturned on appeal, but liberals are trying to steal the election by cementing in people's minds that Trump is a criminal, when in fact no crime was committed. I hope it keeps you up at night. |
|
|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel ♀︎ on Apr 15, 2024 20:07:12 GMT
Don Snoreleone lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Factchecker3Point0 on Apr 15, 2024 20:09:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Fetzer Zinfandel ♀︎ on Apr 15, 2024 20:11:52 GMT
🤣
|
|
|
|
Post by dk56 on Apr 15, 2024 20:15:19 GMT
why you don't you just make this the official 'election interference thread' ?
|
|
