NY vs Donald Trump: Hush money case

PPQ_Purple said:
Well of course it is. Thing is, just because something is in fact a political kangoroo court designed to eliminate a political rival and make sure that all the other rich people keep to the unwritten covenant between money and power does not mean Trump is innocent. Quite the contrary, it's clear he did actually break a lot of laws.
Click to expand...
It's a political kangeroo court, but he clearly broke a lot of laws.

You guys funny.
 
It's not a kangaroo court. It's an official court of law. It has conducted all of its proceedings according to the principles that govern our judicial system in every other case it tries. If anything Trump has been afforded more considerations than due process requires. There is sufficient evidence that Trump has committed crimes that the case is being tried in a court of law. A jury will decide. As it does in every other case.
 
EnglishEdward said:
Guess what.

She is a pornographic sex actress and, like those of us who are not, also expects to be paid for her work.

So what is wrong with her being paid for that?

Payment for services rendered would seem to me to be the "large part" as to why she was paid.

Arguably The Donald ought to have paid her in the first place himself from his post tax income
(but obviously he was either far too cheapskate and/or wanting an NDA went through his attorney),
OR the ultimate reimbursed payment declared a benefit for Donald and therefore taxable.

Now the people that own or contributed to the company that reimbursed his attornery
may have a grievance but they are not obvious plaintives.

Furthermore the IRS may have a grouch on The Donald thus indirectly underdeclaring income for tax purposes.
But in most sensible countries that is normally resolved by the taxation authority levying an additional sum,
and perhaps a small late payment penalty charge, without bothering to recouse to any criminal courts.

Now the use of campaign funds as an intermediary was clearly wrong, but Michael Cohen copped for that.

Going for The Donald, who is not an accountant, not a lawyer and not an expert on campaign funding laws,
for what is effectively the same offense seems to me to be very much political theatre.
Click to expand...
The legal case is about two things: falsifying the company accounting records (a misdemeanor) by recording payments to Cohen as legal services when they were reimbursements and doing that to hide the felony crime of election fraud. The $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels is legal in and of itself, but he paid it to support his campaign and did not report it as part of his campaign spending. It was an illegal contribution. It is the combination of these two acts that make it a felony in NY. It is not a tax issue. Yes Cohen was convicted of it previously but at the time Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator. Trump's DOJ would not indict him. NY picked up the case later and that led to this case now.
 
PPQ_Purple said:
Well of course it is. Thing is, just because something is in fact a political kangoroo court designed to eliminate a political rival and make sure that all the other rich people keep to the unwritten covenant between money and power does not mean Trump is innocent. Quite the contrary, it's clear he did actually break a lot of laws.

Really, that's the crux of the issue here. There ain't no such thing as an innocent rich guy. They all do what ever the hell they want acting as untouchable medieval nobility. And the powerful let them. Because that is the covenant between the two. The rich buy the powerful but don't usurp them and in turn the powerful show their gratitude by letting the rich get away with anything they bloody well want. It's a symbiotic cycle of corruption that works as long as both sides stick to their side of the bargain.

Trump broke that covenant and now the powerful will simply open up his file and sue him for the things he did actually do back when he was untouchable.
Click to expand...
It is pretty clear that you do not understand US law. Rich people go to jail all the time for illegal acts. NY state is the entity that indicted Trump. Joe Biden is not involved. Can you make a connection between Biden and the NY AG office where he is directing this case? Claiming this is kangaroo court does not make it so. Just like claiming that the 2020 election was rigged does not make it so. Please explain how this is a kangaroo court? Is it the judge? The jury? The Attorney General? The prosecutors? Is the FL documents case a kangaroo court too?

It is easy to make claims that are not true. It is harder to make a claim and then actually support with evidence. In general, yes the rich are powerful and have the resources to avoid many of the ills of life and can find loopholes in laws. And yes there is a cabal of conservative rich people to thwart democracy and bend the US system to their personal wishes. There is also a much less effective leftish group doing the same. There are also the rich who just want to be richer and look for ways to do that.

Did you know that Trump bankrupted a casino? Do know how hard that is to do? Casinos, when run properly, print money. Trump is such a poor businessman that he couldn't manage that. His father had to bail him out.
 
EnglishEdward said:
Going for The Donald, who is not an accountant, not a lawyer and not an expert on campaign funding laws,
for what is effectively the same offense seems to me to be very much political theatre.
Click to expand...
What the trial has been showing over the past two weeks is that the non accountant, non attorney, ignorant campaigner, Trump directed the whole pay off to Stormy Daniels to save his campaign after the "grab them by the pussy" tape was released. Everyone else involved worked at Trump's direction. Oh, btw, ignorance of the law is not a viable defense.
 
Narz said:
Lol no porn star or escort is that expensive, he probably gave her a few hundred at most for that
Click to expand...
She will likely testify and may tell us the full nature of their interaction. She might even used one of these to figure out what to charge:

Spoiler :

These are truly old school and date back many decades. Perfect for a retro guy like Trump. I cannot imagine what a "modern" one would look like.
1714842701361.png

 
Quite.

Well I have always doubted that The Trump was paying her 130,000 dollars to vote for him,
and she clearly wasn't an electoral officer in any position to fix any particular voting count.
If an election official is paid to look the other way, that can be fraud, but if an individual
who is under no duty to do anything, is paid not do anything that doesn't seem fraud.

And if she was blackmailing him, then paying off makes The Trump the victim.

My experience of accounting systems often require budgets (with funds in) to be paid from,
account types to exist and payment function codes to be used; and in a hurry if there is no
budget code available (e.g. for perverted sex services), people will use what will work.
That is certainly corrupt use of accounting, but inflexible accounting drives corruption.

There are questionable products and services available that offer to bill your credit card (if you are stupid
enough to give it to them) with perfectly innocuous descriptions that disguise the nature of the product or
service. Does the US justice system habitually prosecute all those involved with false accounting ?

I understand the convoluted logic put forward here by others, but accepting that seem dangerous as
ultimately any payment by any person standing for election to another can be claimed as election fraud.
 
EnglishEdward said:
I understand the convoluted logic put forward here by others, but accepting that seem dangerous as
ultimately any payment by any person standing for election to another can be claimed as election fraud.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely untrue. Campaigns make thousands of payments, probably hundreds of thousands.
 
Part of the prosecution's burden will be proving that it is not just that.
 
Birdjaguar said:
It is pretty clear that you do not understand US law. Rich people go to jail all the time for illegal acts. NY state is the entity that indicted Trump. Joe Biden is not involved. Can you make a connection between Biden and the NY AG office where he is directing this case? Claiming this is kangaroo court does not make it so. Just like claiming that the 2020 election was rigged does not make it so. Please explain how this is a kangaroo court? Is it the judge? The jury? The Attorney General? The prosecutors? Is the FL documents case a kangaroo court too?
It is easy to make claims that are not true. It is harder to make a claim and then actually support with evidence. In general, yes the rich are powerful and have the resources to avoid many of the ills of life and can find loopholes in laws. And yes there is a cabal of conservative rich people to thwart democracy and bend the US system to their personal wishes. There is also a much less effective leftish group doing the same. There are also the rich who just want to be richer and look for ways to do that.

Did you know that Trump bankrupted a casino? Do know how hard that is to do? Casinos, when run properly, print money. Trump is such a poor businessman that he couldn't manage that. His father had to bail him out.
Click to expand...
Trump was doing crap like this long before just now though. They all are. That's the point.

I am not contesting his guilt here. Trump is the quintessential corrupt capitalist right out of the gilded age, only less competent. Of course he is dirty.

And I am not upset this is happening either. If anything, the system is actually working as intended for once and that's a good thing. I am just stating the facts as they are.

And the facts are that the only reason he is being prosecuted with such vigor and persistence is because the legal system has been given permission to do so. Had he not gone into politics he would have continued to muddle through being a semi competent reality TV actor and shady rich guy and newer faced justice. But he didn't. He crossed that line. And the moment he stepped into politics Trump crossed a line and the corrupt elite did what it always does, unchain the police and tell them that they are allowed to do their job for once. The rest is procedure.

And this is hardly an american thing either. Just look at how much Seville got away with in England, or hell how much people get away with in China until they mess anger someone in power. Or, if you want a less pretty example look at how much Escobar got away with until he decided he wanted to go into politics. And than suddenly dead. We even had one such guy where I am from. Friend of the people, a "good" capitalist and overall just swell guy. Got a medal from the president and everything. Until he tried to found a political party. Suddenly the police found evidence of all sorts of corruption and tax evasion and all sorts of stuff and he was public enemy number one.

It's just the system working as intended.
 
Last edited:
@ Gori the Grey

Well we shall see what the jury concludes.

As a non USA poster, my observer perspective is that The Donald ought to have been barred from
public office after the 6 January 2020 riot, but the impeachment process failed the USA in that.

Attempts to thwart him by criminal trials may result in acquitals, or if convicted be overturned
on appeal, but if upheld, they may result in unintended adverse consequences in other instances.

Although jurors awarding penalty damages in civil cases, decided on probability not certainty, specifically
set to transfer all the person's wealth to the plaintiffs and their lawyers may prove to be more significant.

Diverging to here in the UK the Prime Minister's wife is non domiciled for tax purpose which means that for a
flat fee she doesn't pay UK tax on income earned outside the UK. The conservative and labour Parties have
declared they will end non domiciled status. If enacted, many billionnaires may exit the UK with their wealth asap.

And I dare say that if the practice of punitive damges being used to confiscate wealth is carried forward in the USA,
many US billionnaires may decide to exit the USA rather than risk losing all to an aggrieved partner and lawyers.

@ PPQ_Purple

I agree. A system whereby nearly all are guilty, but we will only prosecute those we don't like; is inherently dangerous.
 
EnglishEdward said:
As a non USA poster, my observer perspective is that The Donald ought to have been barred from
public office after the 6 January 2020 riot, but the impeachment process failed the USA in that.
Click to expand...
That was for a different one of his crimes against our electoral process.

He has to be accountable for each of his crimes against our electoral process.

You can't turn the fact that (his own party in) the Senate refused to convict him in the impeachment process into a blanket immunity for all crimes.
 
From the beginning of this trial the polling winds began to shift in Trump's favor. Which is in accordance with my declarations that there will be a segment of the electoral which will be appalled by lawfare as well as a segment that identifies with those being ground under the boot of corruption masquerading as justice.
 
EnglishEdward said:
Guess what.

She is a pornographic sex actress and, like those of us who are not, also expects to be paid for her work.

So what is wrong with her being paid for that?

Payment for services rendered would seem to me to be the "large part" as to why she was paid.

Arguably The Donald ought to have paid her in the first place himself from his post tax income
(but obviously he was either far too cheapskate and/or wanting an NDA went through his attorney),
OR the ultimate reimbursed payment declared a benefit for Donald and therefore taxable.

Now the people that own or contributed to the company that reimbursed his attornery
may have a grievance but they are not obvious plaintives.

Furthermore the IRS may have a grouch on The Donald thus indirectly underdeclaring income for tax purposes.
But in most sensible countries that is normally resolved by the taxation authority levying an additional sum,
and perhaps a small late payment penalty charge, without bothering to recouse to any criminal courts.

Now the use of campaign funds as an intermediary was clearly wrong, but Michael Cohen copped for that.

Going for The Donald, who is not an accountant, not a lawyer and not an expert on campaign funding laws,
for what is effectively the same offense seems to me to be very much political theatre.
Click to expand...
Imagine this in the voice of a particular Simpsons character:

"I'm a legal expert!"

:)
 
EnglishEdward said:
Quite.

Well I have always doubted that The Trump was paying her 130,000 dollars to vote for him,
and she clearly wasn't an electoral officer in any position to fix any particular voting count.
If an election official is paid to look the other way, that can be fraud, but if an individual
who is under no duty to do anything, is paid not do anything that doesn't seem fraud.

And if she was blackmailing him, then paying off makes The Trump the victim.

My experience of accounting systems often require budgets (with funds in) to be paid from,
account types to exist and payment function codes to be used; and in a hurry if there is no
budget code available (e.g. for perverted sex services), people will use what will work.
That is certainly corrupt use of accounting, but inflexible accounting drives corruption.

There are questionable products and services available that offer to bill your credit card (if you are stupid
enough to give it to them) with perfectly innocuous descriptions that disguise the nature of the product or
service. Does the US justice system habitually prosecute all those involved with false accounting ?

I understand the convoluted logic put forward here by others, but accepting that seem dangerous as
ultimately any payment by any person standing for election to another can be claimed as election fraud.
Click to expand...
Under US election law there are both limits on who can donate what amounts and reporting requirements that demand accurate accounting of any money spent to further a candidates efforts to win. Trump did not report the $130,000 he spent to silence Stormy Daniels as a campaign expenditure and he falsified his bookkeeping to hide the payments altogether. Those are his two crimes. Under NY law, together they constitute a felony charge. The task of the prosecutor to to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that Trump knew what he was doing and that he was directing others to act on his behalf. On Friday, Hope Hicks, his most loyal of followers, testified under oath that Trump told her that because of the Access Hollywood tape, settling the Storm Daniels situation prior to the election was most important. That means: Trump knew about the payments and that they were election related. Those are the key elements to a conviction. Everything else is just supporting evidence to that situation. Hope Hicks testifying to that is just a small notch below Ivanka had she done the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom