@no1marauder
There's no doubt he plotted with Pecker, Cohen and others to quash unfavorable stories to aid the campaign, no doubt Cohen paid Daniels to do so
------------------------------
let me know when you post something that is an actual crime
@Earl-of-Trumps
It would be a real crime for you if ANY dem had been charged like that which you know full well which makes you a flaming hypocrite.
Tell me how Biden brought about the charges, eh, for a STATE system.
@Earl-of-Trumps saidPretty shocking dishonesty to leave out the rest of the sentence:
@no1marauder
There's no doubt he plotted with Pecker, Cohen and others to quash unfavorable stories to aid the campaign, no doubt Cohen paid Daniels to do so
------------------------------
let me know when you post something that is an actual crime
" There's no doubt he plotted with Pecker, Cohen and others to quash unfavorable stories to aid the campaign, no doubt Cohen paid Daniels to do so, no doubt Trump reimbursed him for doing so and no doubts that the checks and other business records falsely recorded the payments as part of a retainer agreement that didn't exist."
Maybe not so shocking, I suppose.
@no1marauder saiddid you miss this?
Pretty shocking dishonesty to leave out the rest of the sentence:
" There's no doubt he plotted with Pecker, Cohen and others to quash unfavorable stories to aid the campaign, no doubt Cohen paid Daniels to do so, no doubt Trump reimbursed him for doing so and no doubts that the checks and other business records falsely recorded the payments as part of a retainer agreement that didn't exist."
Maybe not so shocking, I suppose.
“Todd Blanche is trying to demonstrate that Cohen, in fact, did have a legitimate agreement to perform legal work. Blanche displayed an email from Allen Weisselberg dated late January 2017 in which Weisselberg wrote to Cohen, “Please prepare the agreement we discussed so we can pay you monthly.”
But Cohen testified there was no agreement, and that the monthly payments were to reimburse him for the Daniels deal.”
Oh I see you take the word of a convict, convicted for lying to the courts and congress.
you and a turd with the shyt knocked out of it have a lot in common
@Mott-The-Hoople
And you know turds very well having your head parked permanently up Trumps ass.
One factor you deliberately ignore is NOBODY takes the word of a convicted felon like Cohen. You listen to their words and then look for corroboration which they did and FOUND IT.
Of course that matters not at all to assswipes like you who have given up the right to think for yourself, just giving what is left of your mind right over to Trump.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidThe Jury saw documents written by the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization, Allan Weisselberg, which showed the calculations of the reimbursement scheme.
did you miss this?
“Todd Blanche is trying to demonstrate that Cohen, in fact, did have a legitimate agreement to perform legal work. Blanche displayed an email from Allen Weisselberg dated late January 2017 in which Weisselberg wrote to Cohen, “Please prepare the agreement we discussed so we can pay you monthly.”
But Cohen testified there was no agreement, and ...[text shortened]... to the courts and congress.
you and a turd with the shyt knocked out of it have a lot in common
Trump himself admitted six years ago in a series of tweets that he reimbursed Cohen for the Daniels payments (those tweets were also in evidence). He also filed Financial Disclosure documents saying the same thing.
The jury rightly rejected Blanche's fairy tale.
@no1marauder saidnow you are lying…
The Jury saw documents written by the Chief Financial Officer of the Trump Organization, Allan Weisselberg, which showed the calculations of the reimbursement scheme.
Trump himself admitted six years ago in a series of tweets that he reimbursed Cohen for the Daniels payments (those tweets were also in evidence). He also filed Financial Disclosure documents saying the same thing.
The jury rightly rejected Blanche's fairy tale.
“Trump attorney Todd Blanche brings up the legal standard, that prosecutors need to prove that Trump caused records to be falsified with an intent to defraud.
"How do you know there’s no intent to defraud? You saw in evidence that the Trump Organization reported this. There’s a 1099 that reflects the payments from (the) trust and Trump's personal account to Michael Cohen," Blanche says.
Blanche says Trump Org. sent the forms to Cohen, whose duty it was to report the income for taxes.
The 1099 filing "shows the Trump Org. disclosed these payments to the IRS, both from the trust and from President Trump’s personal account," Blanche says.
"There's nothing criminal about this at all, it's the way it's supposed to be done," he argues.
Blanche shows the jury the tweet from Trump in 2018 when he refers to this as a retainer agreement.
"If there was an intent to defraud why would he do that?" Blanche asks.”
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidBlanche really sucked at arguing.
now you are lying…
“Trump attorney Todd Blanche brings up the legal standard, that prosecutors need to prove that Trump caused records to be falsified with an intent to defraud.
"How do you know there’s no intent to defraud? You saw in evidence that the Trump Organization reported this. There’s a 1099 that reflects the payments from (the) trust and Trump's perso ...[text shortened]... as a retainer agreement.
"If there was an intent to defraud why would he do that?" Blanche asks.”
A 1099 is for reporting income, not reimbursement. So the 1099 was fraudulent and highly supportive of the idea of an intent to defraud.
Trump filed financial disclosure forms 6 years ago showing it was a reimbursement in direct contradiction to the 1099. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-discloses-reimbursement-to-michael-cohen-tied-to-stormy-daniels-payment-1526493667
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidHAhahaha...your soooo stupid.
now you are lying…
“Trump attorney Todd Blanche brings up the legal standard, that prosecutors need to prove that Trump caused records to be falsified with an intent to defraud.
"How do you know there’s no intent to defraud? You saw in evidence that the Trump Organization reported this. There’s a 1099 that reflects the payments from (the) trust and Trump's perso ...[text shortened]... as a retainer agreement.
"If there was an intent to defraud why would he do that?" Blanche asks.”
@Mott-The-Hoople saidWell, you're taking the word of a known liar and convict. 34 times over.
did you miss this?
“Todd Blanche is trying to demonstrate that Cohen, in fact, did have a legitimate agreement to perform legal work. Blanche displayed an email from Allen Weisselberg dated late January 2017 in which Weisselberg wrote to Cohen, “Please prepare the agreement we discussed so we can pay you monthly.”
But Cohen testified there was no agreement, and ...[text shortened]... to the courts and congress.
you and a turd with the shyt knocked out of it have a lot in common
@no1marauder saidbullshyt…show me the proof, not some lib media article
Blanche really sucked at arguing.
A 1099 is for reporting income, not reimbursement. So the 1099 was fraudulent and highly supportive of the idea of an intent to defraud.
Trump filed financial disclosure forms 6 years ago showing it was a reimbursement in direct contradiction to the 1099. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-discloses-reimbursement-to-michael-cohen-tied-to-stormy-daniels-payment-1526493667
@Mott-The-Hoople saidShow you proof of trump’s guilt?
bullshyt…show me the proof, not some lib media article
There’s just been a court case where he was proven to be guilty of 34 crimes.
You republicans really are whining snowflakes, aren’t you?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidThe Wall Street Journal is part of the "lib media" now?
bullshyt…show me the proof, not some lib media article
@no1marauder saidi asked you to show the proof, not some opinion article…but you cant because it is not true
The Wall Street Journal is part of the "lib media" now?
