Election Interference | Donald Trump + Stormy Daniels hush money case

[BillStime]

The legal proceedings concerning the election interference by Donald Trump are pending. What is notable about this case is that even though the presiding judge has decided to delay the hearing for a period of 20 days from its initial scheduled date, there is already a palpable escalation in the intensity and complexity of the case.

 

 

 

 

Edited Friday at 05:34 PM by BillStime

[daz28]

There is absolutely no 'winning' in any of that.  What trump was asking for was ridiculous.  The right wing MSM is going to be all over this as left-wing democrat socialist commie judge.  

[Tommy Callahan]

Rage bait.  

 

 

[daz28]

14 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Rage bait.  

 

 

Wait, I had no idea NC allowed you to post in BT created threads.  TREASONOUS!

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

 

[Tommy Callahan]

22 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Lol.  Those trigger the low watt profiles  big time. 

[BillStime]

 

[T&C]

9 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

MSNBC? You might well be better off watching the SCify channel...

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, T&C said:

MSNBC? You might well be better off watching the SCify channel...

 

You seem panicked.

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

Please keep championing this openly corrupt doj. 

 

It's working great to highlight it.  

 

 

 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Please keep championing this openly corrupt doj. 

 

It's working great to highlight it.  

 

 

 

 

You seem panicked.

[BillStime]

Yup

 

 

[ChiGoose]

If anyone is looking for a comprehensive overview of the case from a legal perspective, Just Security has put together a very detailed guide.

 

They are more bullish on this case than I am, but something I've noticed is that the more familiar people are with NYS law and the regular practice of the Manhattan DA's office, the stronger they believe this case is.

 

In regards to proving the elements of the case, they note:

"Despite early and ongoing skepticism of DANY’s case, we view it as strong because prosecutors will likely establish with relative ease three of the four corners of the alleged crimes: the “catch and kill” scheme, the payment to Daniels to bury the story of the affair, and the paper trail of reimbursements and records that mischaracterized and concealed the nature of the hush payment. As one commentator wrote, “the spine of the case is the paper trail of the money, [and] Bragg will be bringing the receipts to trial.”

 

The fourth corner of the scheme is Trump’s intent to commit or conceal another crime, as the law requires to be elevated to the felony first-degree falsification of business records. DANY will have to prove that Trump intended to commit or conceal campaign finance violations (state or federal) or tax violations. Proving this intent will be more difficult than proving the objective facts (as it almost always is), but as discussed in more detail below, DANY appears to have the upper hand." (emphasis mine)

 

As for how these types of charges have been used in the past, they provide some examples:

"When Bragg first charged Trump in April 2023, he stated that in his 14 months in office he had already prosecuted 117 felony counts of falsifying business records against 29 individuals and companies. During the ten years from March 2013 to March 2023, the office prosecuted 437 such cases. Moreover, DAs across the state of New York frequently charge defendants with felony falsification of business records. Reports in April 2023 stated, “Data shows 9,794 cases involving state penal law 175.10, or falsifying business records in the first degree, have been arraigned in both local and superior New York state courts since 2015.”" (emphasis mine)

 

They also note that these charges have been used in the context of campaign finance violations in the past:

• Former NYS Assemblyman Clarence Norman was convicted in 2005 of falsifying business records in connection with campaign finance violations
• Richard Brega pleaded guilty to one count of felony falsifying business records for misrepresenting the source of funds he funneled into a county executive campaign
• Richard Luthmann was arraigned for multiple felony charges including falsifying business records and election law violations and subsequently pleaded guilty.

[The Frankish Reich]

9 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

If anyone is looking for a comprehensive overview of the case from a legal perspective, Just Security has put together a very detailed guide.

 

They are more bullish on this case than I am, but something I've noticed is that the more familiar people are with NYS law and the regular practice of the Manhattan DA's office, the stronger they believe this case is.

 

In regards to proving the elements of the case, they note:

"Despite early and ongoing skepticism of DANY’s case, we view it as strong because prosecutors will likely establish with relative ease three of the four corners of the alleged crimes: the “catch and kill” scheme, the payment to Daniels to bury the story of the affair, and the paper trail of reimbursements and records that mischaracterized and concealed the nature of the hush payment. As one commentator wrote, “the spine of the case is the paper trail of the money, [and] Bragg will be bringing the receipts to trial.”

 

The fourth corner of the scheme is Trump’s intent to commit or conceal another crime, as the law requires to be elevated to the felony first-degree falsification of business records. DANY will have to prove that Trump intended to commit or conceal campaign finance violations (state or federal) or tax violations. Proving this intent will be more difficult than proving the objective facts (as it almost always is), but as discussed in more detail below, DANY appears to have the upper hand." (emphasis mine)

 

As for how these types of charges have been used in the past, they provide some examples:

"When Bragg first charged Trump in April 2023, he stated that in his 14 months in office he had already prosecuted 117 felony counts of falsifying business records against 29 individuals and companies. During the ten years from March 2013 to March 2023, the office prosecuted 437 such cases. Moreover, DAs across the state of New York frequently charge defendants with felony falsification of business records. Reports in April 2023 stated, “Data shows 9,794 cases involving state penal law 175.10, or falsifying business records in the first degree, have been arraigned in both local and superior New York state courts since 2015.”" (emphasis mine)

 

They also note that these charges have been used in the context of campaign finance violations in the past:

• Former NYS Assemblyman Clarence Norman was convicted in 2005 of falsifying business records in connection with campaign finance violations
• Richard Brega pleaded guilty to one count of felony falsifying business records for misrepresenting the source of funds he funneled into a county executive campaign
• Richard Luthmann was arraigned for multiple felony charges including falsifying business records and election law violations and subsequently pleaded guilty.

Thanks. Good analysis. I'll read the whole thing.

With respect to the final element (for the purpose of providing an election benefit) - timing is key here. It is probably going to rest on circumstantial evidence, which I believe will show that the hush money payment and recording of it were deliberately delayed until after the election.

 

I've always believed it was a silly case to bring since it isn't of earth shattering importance. But on the legal theory, I think it is likely to fly. The questions have to do with the level of proof of that final element that turns it into a felony.

[BillStime]

The irony of Conald crying about a family member of a judge...

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

This is the case that hinges on convicted felon, Cohen's statements?  

 

I thought we did this before.  

 

 

[BillStime]

Happy Easter!!!

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 3/27/2024 at 9:53 AM, ChiGoose said:

If anyone is looking for a comprehensive overview of the case from a legal perspective, Just Security has put together a very detailed guide.

 

They are more bullish on this case than I am, but something I've noticed is that the more familiar people are with NYS law and the regular practice of the Manhattan DA's office, the stronger they believe this case is.

 

In regards to proving the elements of the case, they note:

"Despite early and ongoing skepticism of DANY’s case, we view it as strong because prosecutors will likely establish with relative ease three of the four corners of the alleged crimes: the “catch and kill” scheme, the payment to Daniels to bury the story of the affair, and the paper trail of reimbursements and records that mischaracterized and concealed the nature of the hush payment. As one commentator wrote, “the spine of the case is the paper trail of the money, [and] Bragg will be bringing the receipts to trial.”

 

The fourth corner of the scheme is Trump’s intent to commit or conceal another crime, as the law requires to be elevated to the felony first-degree falsification of business records. DANY will have to prove that Trump intended to commit or conceal campaign finance violations (state or federal) or tax violations. Proving this intent will be more difficult than proving the objective facts (as it almost always is), but as discussed in more detail below, DANY appears to have the upper hand." (emphasis mine)

 

As for how these types of charges have been used in the past, they provide some examples:

"When Bragg first charged Trump in April 2023, he stated that in his 14 months in office he had already prosecuted 117 felony counts of falsifying business records against 29 individuals and companies. During the ten years from March 2013 to March 2023, the office prosecuted 437 such cases. Moreover, DAs across the state of New York frequently charge defendants with felony falsification of business records. Reports in April 2023 stated, “Data shows 9,794 cases involving state penal law 175.10, or falsifying business records in the first degree, have been arraigned in both local and superior New York state courts since 2015.”" (emphasis mine)

 

They also note that these charges have been used in the context of campaign finance violations in the past:

• Former NYS Assemblyman Clarence Norman was convicted in 2005 of falsifying business records in connection with campaign finance violations
• Richard Brega pleaded guilty to one count of felony falsifying business records for misrepresenting the source of funds he funneled into a county executive campaign
• Richard Luthmann was arraigned for multiple felony charges including falsifying business records and election law violations and subsequently pleaded guilty.

Thanks for posting.

 

But what isn't clear to me is what is specific name of the business entity where false business records were created?  Is it the 2016 Trump campaign?  I don't understand the source of funds to be campaign funds.  So I don't think so.  That takes a campaign financing violations off the table.  That's the nature of the example violations cited in the article.

So is this "crime" putting an accounting transaction which was a hush money payment in the wrong account of one of Trump's private businesses?  And not to be flippant,  but under GAAP what is the correct ledger account or sub-account to book "hush money payments"?  I don't think there is one.  So unless there was avoidance of taxes or the transaction was treated materially different from other accounting transactions what's the interest of The State in determining where it should be booked?  It's a private company.  Who is Trump intending to deceive?  Regulators, shareholders, the voters? 

As far as disclosing the payment or the timing of the disclosure, why make a hush money payment if there's some legal requirement to disclose it?  By definition that takes the "hush" off the table.  So why do it, period?

My problem with this and the other Trump prosecutions is they all seem custom manufactured specifically to target and prosecute Trump tailored to the specific circumstances of his situation and bending and molding legal interpretations to use againt him and no one else.

I think that summarizes the gripe most have here rather than being comitted to the defense of Trump because of some ideological devotion to the scoundrel.

Edited March 31 by All_Pro_Bills

[ChiGoose]

54 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Thanks for posting.

 

But what isn't clear to me is what is specific name of the business entity where false business records were created?  Is it the 2016 Trump campaign?  I don't understand the source of funds to be campaign funds.  So I don't think so.  That takes a campaign financing violations off the table.  That's the nature of the example violations cited in the article.

So is this "crime" putting an accounting transaction which was a hush money payment in the wrong account of one of Trump's private businesses?  And not to be flippant,  but under GAAP what is the correct ledger account or sub-account to book "hush money payments"?  I don't think there is one.  So unless there was avoidance of taxes or the transaction was treated materially different from other accounting transactions what's the interest of The State in determining where it should be booked?  It's a private company.  Who is Trump intending to deceive?  Regulators, shareholders, the voters? 

As far as disclosing the payment or the timing of the disclosure, why make a hush money payment if there's some legal requirement to disclose it?  By definition that takes the "hush" off the table.  So why do it, period?

My problem with this and the other Trump prosecutions is they all seem custom manufactured specifically to target and prosecute Trump tailored to the specific circumstances of his situation and bending and molding legal interpretations to use againt him and no one else.

I think that summarizes the gripe most have here rather than being comitted to the defense of Trump because of some ideological devotion to the scoundrel.

If the payments were made by Trump in order to benefit the campaign but were not reported as campaign expenses, then that constitutes a campaign violation even (and especially) if the funds did not come from the campaign. 
 

The argument being presented is that the arrangement to pay Stormy Daniels came on the heels of the Access Hollywood tape. Since the tape was very damaging to Trump, the possibility of Daniels’ going public with him cheating on his wife right after their son was born would likely be viewed as a problem for the campaign.
 

So Trump arranged to pay for something that benefited his campaign in a manner that concealed it from campaign finance reporting requirements. 
 

It’s a bit complicated if you’re not familiar with the issues here, so I’ll give a hypo:

 

Let’s say that in addition to Bill being on the Epstein flight logs, Hillary herself was on them a bunch. During the 2016 election with all of the Pizzagate stuff, Hillary realized that her name on the logs would be a problem if it were made public. But if she arranged to pay off Epstein / Maxwell with campaign funds, she’d have to report it to the FEC. So instead, she used Clinton Foundation money to pay Epstein / Maxwell to keep the logs secret during the campaign. 
 

That would be a campaign finance violation because the money was spent to benefit the campaign but wasn’t properly done under campaign finance laws. 

[Unforgiven]

Per white people hating yahoo.com front page....

https://www.yahoo.com/news/joe-biden-hasnt-targeted-judges-091417088.html

 

A real leader will viciously attack a judge's daughter with no evidence

 

He also Christianly railed at the judge’s daughter, writing that she is “a Rabid Trump Hater, who has admitted to having conversations with her father about me” while not providing any evidence, which is a total alpha-male move.

 

 

Lol all the bs and nasty ***** the the monkeys on left hammer on this guy day after day...and this is vicious?

The left cult is just a parody of a Saturday night live skit.

[BillsFanNC]

 

The King: Let me share with you this detailed guide on why Trump is guilty, brought to you by a bunch of Marxists.

 

Also next, let me show you this handy guide as to why Jews are evil, brought to you by Hamas.

 

Quote

 

Just Security is an online forum for the rigorous analysis....

 

We are grateful for support from Craig Newmark Philanthropies, Open Society Foundations, Global Institute for Advanced Study at New York University, Atlantic Philanthropies,

 

 

Craig Newmark = Wikipedia 

 

Open Society = George Soros

 

NYU = well NYU

 

Atlantic Philanthropies = initiatives listed on website chock full of DEI, LGBTQ crap.

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

If the payments were made by Trump in order to benefit the campaign but were not reported as campaign expenses, then that constitutes a campaign violation even (and especially) if the funds did not come from the campaign. 
 

The argument being presented is that the arrangement to pay Stormy Daniels came on the heels of the Access Hollywood tape. Since the tape was very damaging to Trump, the possibility of Daniels’ going public with him cheating on his wife right after their son was born would likely be viewed as a problem for the campaign.
 

So Trump arranged to pay for something that benefited his campaign in a manner that concealed it from campaign finance reporting requirements. 
 

It’s a bit complicated if you’re not familiar with the issues here, so I’ll give a hypo:

 

Let’s say that in addition to Bill being on the Epstein flight logs, Hillary herself was on them a bunch. During the 2016 election with all of the Pizzagate stuff, Hillary realized that her name on the logs would be a problem if it were made public. But if she arranged to pay off Epstein / Maxwell with campaign funds, she’d have to report it to the FEC. So instead, she used Clinton Foundation money to pay Epstein / Maxwell to keep the logs secret during the campaign. 
 

That would be a campaign finance violation because the money was spent to benefit the campaign but wasn’t properly done under campaign finance laws. 

Typically, such campaign issues involving improper accounting are subject to fines.  Not felony jail time.  Not public show trials and media frenzies. 

For example, the Clinton campaign funneled a payment through their law firm that was washed through the law firm to pay FusionGPS to pay Christopher Steele for the Russia dossier.  The campaign booked the payment as "legal expenses", which is was not.  The election commission issued a fine and closed the matter.  Which was the customary action. 

Clearly, the information in the dossier was intended to be used for the campaign or distributed to others with the motive of "influencing" the election.  

But this payment with Trump is a big deal.

Edited March 31 by All_Pro_Bills

[ChiGoose]

12 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Typically, such campaign issues involving improper accounting are subject to fines.  Not felony jail time.  Not public show trials and media frenzies. 

For example, the Clinton campaign funneled a payment through their law firm that was washed through the law firm to pay FusionGPS to pay Christopher Steele for the Russia dossier.  The campaign booked the payment as "legal expenses", which is was not.  The election commission issued a fine and closed the matter.  Which was the customary action. 

Clearly, the information in the dossier was intended to be used for the campaign or distributed to others with the motive of "influencing" the election.  

But this payment with Trump is a big deal.

 

That's a valid criticism and the reason why this is generally considered the weakest case against Trump. 

 

The nuance here is that Trump is being charged for misappropriating company funds, which is a misdemeanor, but the DA is arguing that he did so in an effort to violate campaign finance law, which escalates the original charge to a felony. It is my understanding that he is not being charged for the campaign violation itself (I don't believe Bragg could even bring that charge if he wanted to). 

 

As I mentioned before, people who are more used to federal criminal practice are generally quite skeptical of this case. Which is why I thought the explainer from Just Security was helpful because it illustrated that this has actually been successfully prosecuted against politicians in Manhattan before.

 

Had Trump paid the money out of the campaign funds and mislabeled it to hide the origin, he'd probably face the same slap on the wrist that Clinton did. By intermingling with the Trump Org's funds, he exposed himself to liability under NYS law.

[All_Pro_Bills]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

That's a valid criticism and the reason why this is generally considered the weakest case against Trump. 

 

The nuance here is that Trump is being charged for misappropriating company funds, which is a misdemeanor, but the DA is arguing that he did so in an effort to violate campaign finance law, which escalates the original charge to a felony. It is my understanding that he is not being charged for the campaign violation itself (I don't believe Bragg could even bring that charge if he wanted to). 

 

As I mentioned before, people who are more used to federal criminal practice are generally quite skeptical of this case. Which is why I thought the explainer from Just Security was helpful because it illustrated that this has actually been successfully prosecuted against politicians in Manhattan before.

 

Had Trump paid the money out of the campaign funds and mislabeled it to hide the origin, he'd probably face the same slap on the wrist that Clinton did. By intermingling with the Trump Org's funds, he exposed himself to liability under NYS law.

I can't argue with your assessment of the nuances as I claim no expert status on the subject but said another way it might boil down to there's a right way to cheat which Clinton used and a wrong way to cheat which Trump used. Even though both are guilty of the same end result of attempting to hide the true nature of payments.

[OrangeBills]

6 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

That's a valid criticism and the reason why this is generally considered the weakest case against Trump. 

 

The nuance here is that Trump is being charged for misappropriating company funds, which is a misdemeanor, but the DA is arguing that he did so in an effort to violate campaign finance law, which escalates the original charge to a felony. It is my understanding that he is not being charged for the campaign violation itself (I don't believe Bragg could even bring that charge if he wanted to). 

 

As I mentioned before, people who are more used to federal criminal practice are generally quite skeptical of this case. Which is why I thought the explainer from Just Security was helpful because it illustrated that this has actually been successfully prosecuted against politicians in Manhattan before.

 

Had Trump paid the money out of the campaign funds and mislabeled it to hide the origin, he'd probably face the same slap on the wrist that Clinton did. By intermingling with the Trump Org's funds, he exposed himself to liability under NYS law.

 

These people (DAs, Judges) in GA and NY should be disbarred, and frankly probably arrested.

 

But we're not a serious nation and so that won't happen.  

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, OrangeBills said:

 

These people (DAs, Judges) in GA and NY should be disbarred, and frankly probably arrested.

 

But we're not a serious nation and so that won't happen.  

Under what theory?

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I can't argue with your assessment of the nuances as I claim no expert status on the subject but said another way it might boil down to there's a right way to cheat which Clinton used and a wrong way to cheat which Trump used. Even though both are guilty of the same end result of attempting to hide the true nature of payments.

It is weird that Clinton got slapped by the FEC while they let Trump do the same thing with no consequences.
 

But the FEC is a hopelessly broken organization. 

 

Maybe he could have gotten away with paying out of the campaign funds and didn’t need to expose himself to NYS liability.

[All_Pro_Bills]

11 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

It is weird that Clinton got slapped by the FEC while they let Trump do the same thing with no consequences.
 

But the FEC is a hopelessly broken organization. 

 

Maybe he could have gotten away with paying out of the campaign funds and didn’t need to expose himself to NYS liability.

What troubles me still is these prosecutors and officials have designed and created a customized and unique interpretation of the law to enforce it against the one-time circumstances of one specific individual and its likely no other person on Earth could be prosecuted using the same interpretation.  Like they reverse engineered the legal system to go after that one guy.  I think that's what it means to "weaponize" the law or what some call waging "lawfare".

 

More troubling is the before mentioned Clinton campaign payment to Steele for the Russia dossier.  That had to be far and away the biggest and most effective election interference effort in the history of US elections and all the people howling and screaming about threats to election integrity ignore the worst offense ever.  It goes unpunished, and is celebrated by certain people, years later.  They got away with political "murder" because the entire legal system turned their backs and looked the other way and  no custom engineered legal interpretation was required.

 

Edited April 1 by All_Pro_Bills

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

What troubles me still is these prosecutors and officials have designed and created a customized and unique interpretation of the law to enforce it against the one-time circumstances of one specific individual and its likely no other person on Earth could be prosecuted using the same interpretation.  Like they reverse engineered the legal system to go after that one guy.  I think that's what it means to "weaponize" the law or what some call waging "lawfare".

 

I don’t think this is true. 
 

As the article stated, the Manhattan DA charges these kinds of cases all of the time, to the extent that they say it’s their “bread and butter.” They’ve even charged them against politicians for campaign violations not unlike what Trump has been charged with. 
 

From what we can tell, the Feds seemed reluctant to move against Trump on the documents because they tried to get him to turn them over for almost a year before taking serious action. It wasn’t until they became aware that he was outright lying to them that they did the search warrant and indictment. As we’ve seen, those types of cases generally don’t get charged unless there’s obstruction like there was with Trump. 
 

And the fake electors scheme, as well as other efforts to overturn the election, were clearly fraud. There’s an argument for one of the states (I can’t remember which one) where the electors understood themselves to be contingent, but for the rest they falsely claimed to be the real electors. Trump directed or was otherwise involved in efforts to defraud the public.

 

The reason these charges seem novel is not because nobody has lied or committed fraud before. It’s because we haven’t seen a president/ former president do it, especially to such an extent. 
 

Had Trump paid Daniels out of the campaign funds and mislabeled it, he’d just get a fine (if that). Had he not lied about turning over the documents and/or just handed them over when asked, he wouldn’t be facing charges there. Had he just gone home when he lost the court cases about the election, he’d be in the same position Al Gore was: not facing charges. 
 

It’s because of his actions that he exposed himself to so much legal liability.

[BillsFanNC]

 ⬆️ 

 

Did the King link to the Soros commie funded Just Security website to bolster its unbiased opinion again?

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillStime]

25 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Notice who the cult never biches about?

 

[The Frankish Reich]

On 4/1/2024 at 6:34 AM, BillsFanNC said:

 ⬆️ 

 

Did the King link to the Soros commie funded Just Security website to bolster its unbiased opinion again?

 

In other words: "Would someone please block quote any responses from @BillStime so that I can read them and then call him a commie while continuing to pretend ignore him."

I remember doing this as a child, using an intermediary: "tell my sister I'm mad at her."

But then I grew up.

[Tommy Callahan]

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

They don't care.  The mob wants it's pound of flesh.  

 

And hypothetically, tried to call kyls judge/case out for smiling.  

 

They just rage on whatever the talking heads tell them. 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

Notice who the cult never biches about?

 

And so far she's the only one of these judges to be slapped down by an appeals court for a clearly incorrect procedural decision. 

And yet I don't see Biden supporters threatening her or her family's/staff's personal security.