45th President Of The United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 14)
Discussion
Strangely Brown said:
McGee_22 said:
Byker28i said:
So trumps $175m bond, trump accepted that Knight Specialty Insurance will put aside the funds securing trump's bond and not spend them until the matter is resolved, and to provide monthly statements to the Manhattan District Attorney ensuring compliance, otherwise asset forfeiture starts.
This after is was noted in court that Knight had violated federal law on multiple occasions and that they relied on risk-transfer practices to artificially bolster the surplus it used to cover trump’s bond, that trump hadn't put up the cash as he claimed.
Basically AG James was about to start seizing trumps assets until that was accepted, trump was left with no choice but to agree to anything.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-agrees-to-new-...
I was under the impression that the bond had to be deposited with the Court - not ‘monitored’ where it is hardly under the Courts control.This after is was noted in court that Knight had violated federal law on multiple occasions and that they relied on risk-transfer practices to artificially bolster the surplus it used to cover trump’s bond, that trump hadn't put up the cash as he claimed.
Basically AG James was about to start seizing trumps assets until that was accepted, trump was left with no choice but to agree to anything.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-agrees-to-new-...
Edited by Byker28i on Tuesday 23 April 06:15
Once again, he is being allowed latitude where nobody else would be.
ScotHill said:
Biden is very sensibly, and with a bit of class, publicly staying out of all of this, but I wonder what his take on immunity would be? Along with the other presidents who didn’t get prosecuted for anything after they left office (I.e. all of them).
45 out of 46 Presidents didn't need immunity...EddieSteadyGo said:
Voldemort said:
I wonder if has kept her copy of the NDA she signed... or, alternatively, I wonder WHY trump paid her $130,000? What reason could there be?
Er.... I already answered that... and it is covered in the video... he is going to say it was a 'false story' which he didn't want to address publicly in the run up to the 2016 election. So he will say he paid her to prevent the story from coming out. If it was a false story, that would be a 'legitimate business expense.' So the prosecution are going to show it was a true story. It makes all their focus on the Cohen recording, and the invoice analysis etc have much less relevance to the case.
You present a rather simple picture and like many of trumps excusers, trying to write it off as just something rich people do to cover up their affairs. It's not about the money but how it was paid, how it was fraudulently recorded and how it was about hiding the stories about his affairs from the electors.
Byker28i said:
ScotHill said:
Biden is very sensibly, and with a bit of class, publicly staying out of all of this, but I wonder what his take on immunity would be? Along with the other presidents who didn’t get prosecuted for anything after they left office (I.e. all of them).
Astacus said:
Strangely Brown said:
McGee_22 said:
Byker28i said:
So trumps $175m bond, trump accepted that Knight Specialty Insurance will put aside the funds securing trump's bond and not spend them until the matter is resolved, and to provide monthly statements to the Manhattan District Attorney ensuring compliance, otherwise asset forfeiture starts.
This after is was noted in court that Knight had violated federal law on multiple occasions and that they relied on risk-transfer practices to artificially bolster the surplus it used to cover trump’s bond, that trump hadn't put up the cash as he claimed.
Basically AG James was about to start seizing trumps assets until that was accepted, trump was left with no choice but to agree to anything.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-agrees-to-new-...
I was under the impression that the bond had to be deposited with the Court - not ‘monitored’ where it is hardly under the Courts control.This after is was noted in court that Knight had violated federal law on multiple occasions and that they relied on risk-transfer practices to artificially bolster the surplus it used to cover trump’s bond, that trump hadn't put up the cash as he claimed.
Basically AG James was about to start seizing trumps assets until that was accepted, trump was left with no choice but to agree to anything.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-agrees-to-new-...
Edited by Byker28i on Tuesday 23 April 06:15
Once again, he is being allowed latitude where nobody else would be.
One suspects there's more to this than we know and the trump org appointed monitor Barbara Jones has a part to play in this.
Voldemort said:
Byker28i said:
ScotHill said:
Biden is very sensibly, and with a bit of class, publicly staying out of all of this, but I wonder what his take on immunity would be? Along with the other presidents who didn’t get prosecuted for anything after they left office (I.e. all of them).
Byker28i said:
Except it's not just about Stormy and the payments, it's also about the payments to the doorman, the payments to Karen McDougal and the business fraud involved.
You present a rather simple picture and like many of trumps excusers, trying to write it off as just something rich people do to cover up their affairs. It's not about the money but how it was paid, how it was fraudulently recorded and how it was about hiding the stories about his affairs from the electors.
I do think people try to cover up affairs. Happens every single day, whether someone is rich or poor. However, that is not my point.You present a rather simple picture and like many of trumps excusers, trying to write it off as just something rich people do to cover up their affairs. It's not about the money but how it was paid, how it was fraudulently recorded and how it was about hiding the stories about his affairs from the electors.
My point is that the Trump defence are not going to deny the payments. Or probably that they were recorded incorrectly. Or that they were trying to hide the story.
They will say it was a 'false story'. And trying to hide a false story isn't criminal. So I think it places a different challenge on the prosecution case.
As I said previously, I don't think it probably was a false story. I think he probably did have an affair with her. But this case will now depend on whether the prosecution can prove that beyond reasonable doubt, and I don't think that was likely to be the original focus of their case.
Voldemort said:
Byker28i said:
ScotHill said:
Biden is very sensibly, and with a bit of class, publicly staying out of all of this, but I wonder what his take on immunity would be? Along with the other presidents who didn’t get prosecuted for anything after they left office (I.e. all of them).
He had his expunged.
EddieSteadyGo said:
Anyone interested in understanding the actual main defence Trump is going to be using, might like to watch this video...
Basically, they are going to say Trump did pay Stormy Daniels. So the invoices, and recording of Cohen etc, all of which the prosecution were relying on Trump denying, suddenly has a lot less importance as Trump will essential admit all that. However, the reason they will use for paying Daniels was to avoid a 'false story' from being published before the election. And that is a 'legitimate business expense'.
So the prosecution are going to need to prove Trump did have an affair with Daniels. And they will need to do that beyond reasonable doubt. However, if you read the evidence from Daniels, she has contradicted herself many times, so it might be hard for the prosecution to reach that threshold.
It is also ironic that the criminal case against Trump effectively will now depend upon whether or not he had an affair or not with Daniels.
From what I've read, I think he probably did have an affair with Daniels. But the way the story about the $130,000 is being presented as the crime of the century is distorted and largely politically motivated imo.
https://youtu.be/hKakzuuznFk?t=382
So trump denied multiple times he had an affair, had hardly met her. Also as mentioned this case is about the ways and the fraudulent business records were created to hide the paymentsBasically, they are going to say Trump did pay Stormy Daniels. So the invoices, and recording of Cohen etc, all of which the prosecution were relying on Trump denying, suddenly has a lot less importance as Trump will essential admit all that. However, the reason they will use for paying Daniels was to avoid a 'false story' from being published before the election. And that is a 'legitimate business expense'.
So the prosecution are going to need to prove Trump did have an affair with Daniels. And they will need to do that beyond reasonable doubt. However, if you read the evidence from Daniels, she has contradicted herself many times, so it might be hard for the prosecution to reach that threshold.
It is also ironic that the criminal case against Trump effectively will now depend upon whether or not he had an affair or not with Daniels.
From what I've read, I think he probably did have an affair with Daniels. But the way the story about the $130,000 is being presented as the crime of the century is distorted and largely politically motivated imo.
https://youtu.be/hKakzuuznFk?t=382
Then just recently trumps been claiming 'new evidence' using the NDA that Cohen got Daniels to sign for the $130K payoff, but thats been public knowledge since January 2018. Remember she did a 60 minutes interview that said she was pressured into signing it 'They can make your life hell in many different ways,'"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stormy-daniels-descri...
How Cohen claimed he paid off Daniels but was never paid by trump for it - in fact there was some truth there because trump tried to stiff Cohen and not pay him initially
https://www.axios.com/2018/02/14/michael-cohen-sto...
trump denied multiple times that he'd had an affair, that he didn't know Cohen had paid Daniels, despite the tapes Cohen has.
https://www.axios.com/2018/04/05/trump-stormy-dani...
Then claimed Cohen was just paid a retainer from the campaign, when Giuliani said Cohen had been paid back the hush money..
2018 Cohen got 3 years in jail for the payments, which trump was also in the charges, but Barr got the DOJ to drop the investigation/charges, whilst also interfering in Vances investigation, claiming it was interfering with their investigation and he had to stop/pause it.
At the same time trumps tax returns were subpoenaed and trump spent 4 years fighting their release.
So in the case of Daniels trump has claimed,
he never met her, didn't remember meeting her
he never had an affair,
never paid her any money,
then money was paid but he knew nothing about it,
then he did know about it but it was a legitimate campaign expense,
then when it was shown to come from trump org, that it wasn't a campaign expense but now just a legitimate legal expense... which is what his fraudulent records tried to show.
Now he's claiming it was all Cohen and again he knew nothing about it...
Remember there's multiple statements, tweets etc from trump all backing this timeline up
It's really not as simple as you claim, not as many trump apologists in the trump orbit have tried to write off as just a misdemeanor... trumps story has changed so many times...
EddieSteadyGo said:
Byker28i said:
Except it's not just about Stormy and the payments, it's also about the payments to the doorman, the payments to Karen McDougal and the business fraud involved.
You present a rather simple picture and like many of trumps excusers, trying to write it off as just something rich people do to cover up their affairs. It's not about the money but how it was paid, how it was fraudulently recorded and how it was about hiding the stories about his affairs from the electors.
I do think people try to cover up affairs. Happens every single day, whether someone is rich or poor. However, that is not my point.You present a rather simple picture and like many of trumps excusers, trying to write it off as just something rich people do to cover up their affairs. It's not about the money but how it was paid, how it was fraudulently recorded and how it was about hiding the stories about his affairs from the electors.
My point is that the Trump defence are not going to deny the payments. Or probably that they were recorded incorrectly. Or that they were trying to hide the story.
They will say it was a 'false story'. And trying to hide a false story isn't criminal. So I think it places a different challenge on the prosecution case.
As I said previously, I don't think it probably was a false story. I think he probably did have an affair with her. But this case will now depend on whether the prosecution can prove that beyond reasonable doubt, and I don't think that was likely to be the original focus of their case.
Byker28i said:
Being given rope, so when it does happen there's no comeback?
One suspects there's more to this than we know and the trump org appointed monitor Barbara Jones has a part to play in this.
For clarity, are we saying the $175M bond is now accepted but doesn't actually have to be lodged or transferred to the court?! If so, this thing is getting more and more watered down to a point where he will have nothing to pay to delay even further surely? One suspects there's more to this than we know and the trump org appointed monitor Barbara Jones has a part to play in this.
"False Story"
Trump is of course, very famously shy of suing people. "False story" - um, I think you mean criminal blackmail. But of course Trump, who isn't fond of making legal threats, would pay up and allow himself to be blackmailed. Of course he would. Much like he did with all the other women he paid off.
Absolutely desperate.
Trump is of course, very famously shy of suing people. "False story" - um, I think you mean criminal blackmail. But of course Trump, who isn't fond of making legal threats, would pay up and allow himself to be blackmailed. Of course he would. Much like he did with all the other women he paid off.
Absolutely desperate.
rscott said:
If they admit the payments were recorded incorrectly, then that's pretty much a slam dunk guilty on the false accounting charges.
I don't think so. There are two parts to the relevant crime of 'Falsifying Business Records'. I believe the prosecution needs to show not just that the there were false entries (which shouldn't be hard) but that the intention was to commit or conceal another crime. Proving records were falsifying on its own isn't enough for the criminal case.The alleged crime was the payment to Daniels designed to influence the 2016 presidential election. But that is only a crime if the story about the affair between Trump and Daniels is true. If the story is false, the payments would not be a crime.
So the prosecution case depends upon them proving beyond reasonable doubt that Daniels' account of the affair is true. Even though I think it probably was true, I also think Trump's defence will have a lot of material to cast some doubt on it.
EddieSteadyGo said:
The alleged crime was the payment to Daniels designed to influence the 2016 presidential election. But that is only a crime if the story about the affair between Trump and Daniels is true. If the story is false, the payments would not be a crime.
The point of the payments was to prevent a damaging story emerging. Whether that story was true or not might have been arguable but that didn't matter, it's the potential damage to his election chances by airing the subject which actually mattered. minimoog said:
The point of the payments was to prevent a damaging story emerging. Whether that story was true or not might have been arguable but that didn't matter, it's the potential damage to his election chances by airing the subject which actually matters.
This is the crux of my whole point. The Trump defence is going to be; they admit the payments. And they admit it was to keep the story out of the public domain. However, they are going to argue it only becomes 'election interference' if they paid to keep a story which was *true* out of the public domain. If they paid to keep a story which was false out of the public domain, that is not a crime.EddieSteadyGo said:
minimoog said:
The point of the payments was to prevent a damaging story emerging. Whether that story was true or not might have been arguable but that didn't matter, it's the potential damage to his election chances by airing the subject which actually matters.
This is the crux of my whole point. The Trump defence is going to be; they admit the payments. And they admit it was to keep the story out of the public domain. However, they are going to argue it only becomes 'election interference' if they paid to keep a story which was *true* out of the public domain. If they paid to keep a story which was false out of the public domain, that is not a crime.EddieSteadyGo said:
However, they are going to argue it only becomes 'election interference' if they paid to keep a story which was *true* out of the public domain. If they paid to keep a story which was false out of the public domain, that is not a crime.
Surely it doesn't matter if the said circumstances took place or not, what the crime is about is hiding a payment or payments to the actress to stop an embarrassing story emerging and then falsifying or just plain hiding them through alternative payments made via a third party (Cohen).The salacious part of this trial is just fluff ('scuse the pun), it's the attempt to hide the payment through Cohen and then not declare it as such, that's the basis as I understand it
cookie1600 said:
Surely it doesn't matter if the said circumstances took place or not, what the crime is about is hiding a payment or payments to the actress to stop an embarrassing story emerging and then falsifying or just plain hiding them through alternative payments made via a third party (Cohen).
The salacious part of this trial is just fluff ('scuse the pun), it's the attempt to hide the payment through Cohen and then not declare it as such, that's the basis as I understand it
I'm not saying what is right or wrong. I'm just saying, based on his lawyers opening statements, what it seems his defence is going to be. The salacious part of this trial is just fluff ('scuse the pun), it's the attempt to hide the payment through Cohen and then not declare it as such, that's the basis as I understand it
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff