Election Interference | Donald Trump + Stormy Daniels hush money case

[BillStime]

 

[BillStime]

Election interference 
 

 

[TH3]

So Trump farting in the courtroom...😷

[BillStime]

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

19 hours ago, BillStime said:

Election interference 
 

 

The inmates are truly in charge of the asylum.  How can a candidate interfere with an election where they're a candidate of a major political party running an active campaign?   

[L Ron Burgundy]

6 hours ago, TH3 said:

So Trump farting in the courtroom...😷

Ugh stale, old man, big Mac farts.  Makes you wonder if the diaper stories are actually true.

29 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The inmates are truly in charge of the asylum.  How can a candidate interfere with an election where they're a candidate of a major political party running an active campaign?   

I guess if a person is running for president they are above the law in your world.   Not sure why anyone would ever take that position.

 

**cue for Bill to insert a cult meme

[ChiGoose]

Trump violates his gag orders so frequently and routinely that if it were literally anyone else, they’d almost certainly have been locked up for contempt. 
 

If this really was some vast organized conspiracy to stop Trump, he’d already be behind bars. 

 

[BillStime]

46 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The inmates are truly in charge of the asylum.  How can a candidate interfere with an election where they're a candidate of a major political party running an active campaign?   

2016 called and want their village idiot back.

[ChiGoose]

53 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The inmates are truly in charge of the asylum.  How can a candidate interfere with an election where they're a candidate of a major political party running an active campaign?   

By breaking the law in an attempt to influence the outcome.

 

He should have just paid out of the campaign fund and gotten a slap on the wrist by the FEC (if even that).

[Doc]

54 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The inmates are truly in charge of the asylum.  How can a candidate interfere with an election where they're a candidate of a major political party running an active campaign?   

 

Because people would have been aghast to learn that a guy who cheated on his first 2 wives...cheated on his 3rd wife!

[BillStime]

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

14 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

By breaking the law in an attempt to influence the outcome.

 

He should have just paid out of the campaign fund and gotten a slap on the wrist by the FEC (if even that).

You've got to know any conviction based on this flimsy interpretation and application of an SEC reporting law morphed into an election law violation is going to get overruled on an appeal.  The court will rule the law as applied to the circumstances is inappropriate.  The prosecutors know this too but the conviction is not the goal.  And they're the real culprits here interfering with the 2020 election.  By maliciously and intentionally keeping a candidate in court and off the campaign trail in order to support a failing and ineffective President in winning a second term. 

[ChiGoose]

14 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

You've got to know any conviction based on this flimsy interpretation and application of an SEC reporting law morphed into an election law violation is going to get overruled on an appeal.  The court will rule the law as applied to the circumstances is inappropriate.  The prosecutors know this too but the conviction is not the goal.  And they're the real culprits here interfering with the 2020 election.  By maliciously and intentionally keeping a candidate in court and off the campaign trail in order to support a failing and ineffective President in winning a second term. 

This is just incorrect based on the law and previous cases. 
 

Multiple politicians have been found guilty for similar acts under this law. Those convictions were not overturned on appeal.

 

Once again, if the goal was a grand conspiracy by everyone to stop Trump, he’d already be behind bars for violating terms of his bail. 

[BillsFanNC]

⬆️ 

 

 

The friggin King 

 

What did it say?

 

No idea, but I am sure that it's informed by commies

 

[Wacka]

On 4/19/2024 at 11:13 AM, Pokebball said:

Ha, your wife would rather you be on this board! I get that

It's "wife" has plenty of time to be on this board as it takes only 5 seconds  to get the deed done. Who knows if it is male, female, hermaphrodite, or  even human (could be a bot).

Edited April 23 by Wacka

[All_Pro_Bills]

36 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

This is just incorrect based on the law and previous cases. 
 

Multiple politicians have been found guilty for similar acts under this law. Those convictions were not overturned on appeal.

 

Once again, if the goal was a grand conspiracy by everyone to stop Trump, he’d already be behind bars for violating terms of his bail. 

Well, if anyone has been convicted of violations of Sarbanes-Oxley applied to election law violations pertaining to NDA's and disclosure requirements including the timing of those disclosures where no campaign funds, either private donations or public funds, were involved I have no problem admitting I'm wrong but would appreciate an example. 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Well, if anyone has been convicted of violations of Sarbanes-Oxley applied to election law violations pertaining to NDA's and disclosure requirements including the timing of those disclosures where no campaign funds, either private donations or public funds, were involved I have no problem admitting I'm wrong but would appreciate an example. 

 

Specific to the Manhattan case (the SOX issue is a different case) multiple people have been charged with felony falsification of business records in connection with an election campaign (what Trump is facing):

• Clarence Norman was convicted of felony falsification of business records in connection with campaign finance violations.
• Richard Brega was charged with, and plead guilty to, felony falsification of business records to conceal election law violations
• Richard Luthmann was charged with, and plead guilty to, felony falsification of business records in furtherance of election law violations.
• John Dote was charged with, and plead guilty to, felony falsification of business records in connection to election law violations.

 

[BillStime]

 

[Tommy Callahan]

Another huge dud.  Another case of using law to try to sway an election..

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[Tommy Callahan]

Lol.  This case is a joke.

 

David ***** says Cohen provided him stories in 2016?

 

Lmao.  The msm reads like a dem mouthpiece. 

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[The Frankish Reich]

14 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

 

You need to get out more. 
The key point of today’s testimony: Packer (I know I’m spelling it wrong to avoid the auto censor) said Cohen discussed with him what Packer could do to help “with the election.” In short, there’s the evidence that suppressing stories was for the purpose of furthering Trump’s campaign. 
To spin this as favorable testimony for Trump is just ridiculous. MSM 1, Alt-Nut coverage 0. 

[BillStime]

Why would P e c k e r pay for a story that wasn't true? And what did they have to hide?

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[Tommy Callahan]

Now they are bringing up bannon.  This is going bad for the production.  Like they are just tossing things at a wall to see if it sticks. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Specific to the Manhattan case (the SOX issue is a different case) multiple people have been charged with felony falsification of business records in connection with an election campaign (what Trump is facing):

• Clarence Norman was convicted of felony falsification of business records in connection with campaign finance violations.
• Richard Brega was charged with, and plead guilty to, felony falsification of business records to conceal election law violations
• Richard Luthmann was charged with, and plead guilty to, felony falsification of business records in furtherance of election law violations.
• John Dote was charged with, and plead guilty to, felony falsification of business records in connection to election law violations.

 

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting here.  According to the stores:

• Norman was found guilty of soliciting illegal campaign contributions.  
• Brega pleaded guilty to illegally donating to a political campaign by funneling cash through a family member.
• Luthmann was guilty of creating several Facebook pages in candidates’ names to try to influence political races making it appear those sites were legitimately associated with the candidates.
• Date plead guilty to embezzlement of party funds.

 

Trump concealed a privately funded payment to another person in exchange for signing an NDA.  No campaign or public funds were stolen or misappropriated as is the case in the above examples and as such none of them are equivalent to the Trump charges.  What he did was fail to publicly disclose an NDA payment.  Is there any legal requirement to do so?  Election or not?  And if there is a legal requirement to disclose an NDA then why have one in the first place?  It renders the idea moot.

 

As for falsifying business records, is the State of New York suggesting there is a proper way of accounting for and a correct GAAP sub-ledger account for secret NDA payments rather than how it was accounted for on his "business records"?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23 by All_Pro_Bills

[The Frankish Reich]

8 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

As for falsifying business records, is the State of New York suggesting there is a proper way of accounting for and a correct GAAP sub-ledger account for secret NDA payments rather than how it was accounted for on his "business records"?

Yes, that is exactly what the Stare of New York is suggesting. Indeed, charging. The payment was laundered through Michael Cohen as a legal fee when it was nothing of the sort. 

[The Frankish Reich]

10 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

What he did was fail to publicly disclose an NDA payment.  Is there any legal requirement to do so? 

I don’t think there is. But there is a legal requirement to not knowingly file false financial statements. If Trump has written out a personal Donald John Trump check I suppose we wouldn’t be here. But he was afraid that such a payment would come to light and ruin his electoral chances so he buried it through a falsified legal expense, using Cohen as a conduit. 
 

Look, you can argue all you like about whether it was wise or prudent or political or whatever to bring this case. I don’t think it was a good idea to bring it for various reasons. But the case is pretty compelling on the facts (yep, this is what Trump and Cohen actually did, and there is evidence that they did it at least in large part to avoid a story coming out that could damage his campaign), and reasonably well thought out with respect to the legal theory. 

[ChiGoose]

32 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting here.  According to the stores:

• Norman was found guilty of soliciting illegal campaign contributions.  
• Brega pleaded guilty to illegally donating to a political campaign by funneling cash through a family member.
• Luthmann was guilty of creating several Facebook pages in candidates’ names to try to influence political races making it appear those sites were legitimately associated with the candidates.
• Date plead guilty to embezzlement of party funds.

 

Trump concealed a privately funded payment to another person in exchange for signing an NDA.  No campaign or public funds were stolen or misappropriated as is the case in the above examples and as such none of them are equivalent to the Trump charges.  What he did was fail to publicly disclose an NDA payment.  Is there any legal requirement to do so?  Election or not?  And if there is a legal requirement to disclose an NDA then why have one in the first place?  It renders the idea moot.

 

As for falsifying business records, is the State of New York suggesting there is a proper way of accounting for and a correct GAAP sub-ledger account for secret NDA payments rather than how it was accounted for on his "business records"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each of those individuals was charged with falsification of records in connection to the election crimes.

 

If Trump wanted to keep the stories out of the news, he could have just paid it out of the campaign fund. That would require disclosure to the FEC. He could have been honest about what the payments were for, but that information is available to the public so it could be discovered before the election, undermining the whole point of the payments.

 

He could have paid out of the campaign and lied about what it was for. Think about the Clinton campaign and the Steele Dossier. They tried to cover it up by paying through an attorney. The FEC fined them for it, but that's just a slap on the wrist because the FEC is a toothless joke of an organization. Trump could have gone that route and probably gotten away with it the same way.

 

But by having the funds come through a NY business, falsifying business records to keep it from going public as a way to benefit a political campaign, he opened himself up to criminal liability in NY. 

[Pokebball]

36 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I don’t think there is. But there is a legal requirement to not knowingly file false financial statements. If Trump has written out a personal Donald John Trump check I suppose we wouldn’t be here. But he was afraid that such a payment would come to light and ruin his electoral chances so he buried it through a falsified legal expense, using Cohen as a conduit. 
 

Look, you can argue all you like about whether it was wise or prudent or political or whatever to bring this case. I don’t think it was a good idea to bring it for various reasons. But the case is pretty compelling on the facts (yep, this is what Trump and Cohen actually did, and there is evidence that they did it at least in large part to avoid a story coming out that could damage his campaign), and reasonably well thought out with respect to the legal theory. 

It is very common for settlements be paid by one's attorney. This isn't odd or peculiar at all. It is also very common to classify settlements as legal expenses.

[Tiberius]

Trump is just shrinking, a beaten loser 

[Pokebball]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Trump is just shrinking, a beaten loser 

That is the goal of the lawfare, right?

[Tommy Callahan]

They use lawfare to attempt to throw the election cause bidens support on the ground is nill.

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Yes, that is exactly what the Stare of New York is suggesting. Indeed, charging. The payment was laundered through Michael Cohen as a legal fee when it was nothing of the sort. 

OK. but fair is fair.  I need to point out, Clinton's campaign laundered payments to Steele for the Russian dossier through her Perkin Coi law firm booked incorrectly as "legal fees" and then to FusionGPS.  Fabricating the biggest election interference hoax of all time.  Still claims its all true today.  And got away with it with just a nominal fine.  Why isn't NYS pursuing charges against  Hillary, the campaign, and law firm?  Because she's a Democrat and the powers aren't out for her scalp.  Given the Trump transgression is less impactful I think my question is appropriate.

 

Also, I wonder how others disguise NDA payments they wish to keep secret?

Edited April 23 by All_Pro_Bills

[Unforgiven]

*dimwit mental *****

[Tiberius]

33 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

That is the goal of the lawfare, right?

The goal of good Americans 

[BillStime]

 

[ChiGoose]

21 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

OK. but fair is fair.  I need to point out, Clinton's campaign laundered payments to Steele for the Russian dossier through her Perkin Coi law firm booked incorrectly as "legal fees" and then to FusionGPS.  Fabricating the biggest election interference hoax of all time.  Still claims its all true today.  And got away with it with just a nominal fine.  Why isn't NYS pursuing charges against  Hillary, the campaign, and law firm?  Because she's a Democrat and the powers aren't out for her scalp.  Given the Trump transgression is less impactful I think my question is appropriate.

 

Also, I wonder how others disguise NDA payments they wish to keep secret?

 

Because Hillary paid it from the campaign, not through a NY business. Different laws, different jurisdictions.

 

Had Trump done the same thing through the Trump campaign, he'd have been in the same boat as Hillary.

[All_Pro_Bills]

2 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Because Hillary paid it from the campaign, not through a NY business. Different laws, different jurisdictions.

 

Had Trump done the same thing through the Trump campaign, he'd have been in the same boat as Hillary.

Sure, but she perpetrated a hoax that influenced the election and inhibited the functioning of the Trump administration for the entire 4 year term while creating a lasting false narrative the faithful still believe to this day.  And she continues to lie about it.  So it's okay to lie and fabricate disinformation on the opposition candidate as long as the campaign pays for it?  

 

As for Trump I could argue no harm, no foul.  So the payment was classified "legal expenses".  So what?  What harm or damage did the State of New York incur?  Nothing.  Or anyone else?  Nothing.  The money was not used or derived from any criminal activity or enterprise.  There was no crime or illegal act before or after the payment.  The payment itself was not illegal or was the NDA.  No taxes or payments to any government or private individual were missed or mis-calculated.  There was no victim, period.  So the charge is a violation of the law that caused no harm to anyone.  That seems utterly foolish.  But representative of the times we live in today where critical and logical thinking is optional.  

 

Even if there is a conviction which is likely given the stacked jury, an appeals court will most certainly reject the States argument and dismiss the case.  But the goal would have already been achieved.  Not to send Trump to prison but to tie him up in court and keep him off the campaign trail for as long as possible to give that feeble old fool enough slack to maybe pull off a re-election bid.  A diabolical but effective plan.  

Edited April 23 by All_Pro_Bills