3 edits
@jj-adams saidSorry Earl looks like JJ thinks banana republics are a good thing. He wants the government and megacorps to smash our democracy. Maybe he'll get a few pesos out of it.
OMG a couple penny-ante fiefdoms run by tyrants that were screwing over the citizens were taken over by an American Fruit Gum company, so they could grow more bananas and put some pesos in the pockets of the peons while a new US-backed generalissimo was in power , how awful.
@earl-of-trumps saidHe allegedly paid off a woman he allegedly had an affair with.
BTW, does anyone know what the charges are against Trump?
Unlike members of Congress, who have a slush fund of taxpayers’ money for that purpose.
Only the slush fund used by Congress is to pay off claims of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment.
The woman Trump paid off never claimed their alleged encounter was anything but consensual.
@plantermoo saidSounds like another Monica Lewinsky situation.
He allegedly paid off a woman he allegedly had an affair with.
Unlike members of Congress, who have a slush fund of taxpayers’ money for that purpose.
Only the slush fund used by Congress is to pay off claims of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment.
The woman Trump paid off never claimed their alleged encounter was anything but consensual.
@kevcvs57 saidI thought you were flexible
Yeah that’s exactly what the republicans are attempting to do through violence and intimidation coupled with suppression of democracy and tsunamis of misinformation / culture war scaremongering.
Did I mention the book burning projects and th3 brainwashing of children in schools and colleges regarding US history
They haven’t arrested anything like as many of them as they should have done.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidIs it a new law that says you can be convicted in the media?
Perhaps one of the parties should rethink its adoration of someone facing multiple criminal investigations.
Is it a new rule that politicians are exempt from obeying the law?
"multiple criminal investigations" - all democrat party witch-hunts, aka, influencing an election
@Earl-of-Trumps
The American author O. Henry coined the term to describe Honduras and Costa Rica under economic exploitation by U.S. corporations, such as the United Fruit Company (now Chiquita).
Our country is the exploiter, not the exploited in that situation. I would just say the USA is an oligarchy. That is more accurate. Our government exploits people abroad and domestically whenever the opportunity arises.
@plantermoo saidexactly, and paying off a woman he had sex with and have her sign an NDA is not a crime.
He allegedly paid off a woman he allegedly had an affair with.
Unlike members of Congress, who have a slush fund of taxpayers’ money for that purpose.
Only the slush fund used by Congress is to pay off claims of sexual misconduct and sexual harassment.
The woman Trump paid off never claimed their alleged encounter was anything but consensual.
So it still begets the question. Maybe our resident lawyer will figure it out for us,
@earl-of-trumps saidHow about if I had my lawyer pay off a woman I had sex with then paid him back from my corporation and recorded it as "legal fees" and used it as a deduction from my taxes?
exactly, and paying off a woman he had sex with and have her sign an NDA is not a crime.
So it still begets the question. Maybe our resident lawyer will figure it out for us,
Would that constitute "Falsifying Business Records" and "Tax Fraud"?
2 edits
@no1marauder saidThis NBC website claims Trump’s campaign never reported the money transaction in its FEC disclosure forms, even though Cohen was acting on behalf of Trump when he wired the money to Daniels.
How about if I had my lawyer pay off a woman I had sex with then paid him back from my corporation and recorded it as "legal fees" and used it as a deduction from my taxes?
Would that constitute "Falsifying Business Records" and "Tax Fraud"?
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/how-trump-s-financial-dealings-stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-may-ncna871951
I have seen other sources that claim the same thing you did, that Trump reported it as legal fees much the same way HRC did. Which one is the truth?
Her is an excerpt from the link below:
"Trump's attorney, Joe Tacopina has argued that Trump's payment to Cohen was in fact a legitimate legal fee. Trump, he noted, never directly paid Daniels any money. Rather, he only paid his own lawyer for services rendered, i.e. legal fees.
"The payments were made to a lawyer, not to Stormy Daniels," Tacopina said last week on MSNBC. "The payments were made to Donald Trump's lawyer, which would be considered legal fees. Michael Cohen ... was his lawyer at the time and advised him that this was the proper way to do this to protect himself and his family from embarrassment. It's as simple as that."
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/manhattan-das-trump-case-rests-shaky-legal-ground-legal-experts-say
1 edit
@metal-brain saidGive it up on your false "whataboutisms"; Cohen made the $130,000 payment and then the Trump Organization reimbursed him but claimed the payments were "legal fees":
This NBC website claims Trump’s campaign never reported the money transaction in its FEC disclosure forms, even though Cohen was acting on behalf of Trump when he wired the money to Daniels.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/how-trump-s-financial-dealings-stormy-daniels-michael-cohen-may-ncna871951
I have seen other sources that claim the same thing you did, t ...[text shortened]... henews.com/government/courts-law/manhattan-das-trump-case-rests-shaky-legal-ground-legal-experts-say
"In Trump's case, that falsehood would sit in the records of the Trump Organization, where ''hush money" payments were recorded — allegedly falsely — as legal fees to Michael Cohen, Trump's one-time closest attorney.
"You're falsifying your records to show that it is a business expense, as if you're paying a lawyer to do legal work, and this wasn't that at all," explained John Moscow, a former senior financial crimes prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney's office."
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-risks-zero-to-4-years-jail-ny-hush-money-2023-1
Quite aside from any campaign finance violations, claiming you are paying "legal fees" (deductible) when you are actually reimbursing a hush money payment (not deductible) would be tax fraud. From the same article:
"Prosecutors could also argue that Trump disguised the hush money in order to commit another, separate crime, state tax fraud, by claiming the bogus Cohen legal fees as a business expense.
Whether the "hush money" reimbursement to Cohen is being claimed by Trump on his personal taxes, or by the Trump Organization as a company expenditure, "one way or another he's intending to cheat the tax man," Moscow said."
@earl-of-trumps saidThey will target him. Then find any crime, Stalin’s Russia.
BTW, does anyone know what the charges are against Trump?
2 edits
@no1marauder saidWhat is wrong with you? This is not a whataboutism.
Give it up on your false "whataboutisms"; Cohen made the $130,000 payment and then the Trump Organization reimbursed him but claimed the payments were "legal fees":
"In Trump's case, that falsehood would sit in the records of the Trump Organization, where ''hush money" payments were recorded — allegedly falsely — as legal fees to Michael Cohen, Trump's one-time closest ...[text shortened]... on as a company expenditure, "one way or another he's intending to cheat the tax man," Moscow said."
All I did is ask which one was true? I am not claiming Trump did not reimburse Cohen for the hush money. I am simply asking if he reported it as "legal fees" to Cohen or did he neglect to report the payment to Cohen on the FEC filings altogether.
Just because Trump says they were legal fees does not necessarily mean he reported to the FEC that he paid it. Regardless of the answer it would not prove you wrong about anything. Stop being so paranoid. Do you just assume everything I post to you is adversarial?
Dude, get a grip. I'm not out to get you. Trump's lawyer is claiming he never reimbursed Cohen for the hush money. That is how Trump is going to try to weasel out of it. Cohen committed perjury so his word isn't that great. We both know Trump is lying. I just want to know if he reported the payment "legal fees" to the FEC or not.
There were probably so many payments to Cohen for legal fees it would be hard to pinpoint which one was for reimbursement or not. Nobody disputes that Cohen paid Daniels the hush money except Trump and his lawyer to weasel out of it. The question is did Trump reimburse Cohen for the same amount and report that amount in "legal fees" to the FEC? If not, Trump might get away with claiming he never reimbursed Cohen. None of us will believe that, but that is not the point. We don't have to believe him for him to get away with it.
@metal-brain saidTrump admitted he reimbursed Cohen for the money paid to Daniels almost 5 years ago:
What is wrong with you? This is not a whataboutism.
All I did is ask which one was true? I am not claiming Trump did not reimburse Cohen for the hush money. I am simply asking if he reported it as "legal fees" to Cohen or did he neglect to report the payment to Cohen on the FEC filings altogether.
Just because Trump says they were legal fees does not necessarily m ...[text shortened]... l believe that, but that is not the point. We don't have to believe him for him to get away with it.
"President Trump released a carefully-worded three-tweet statement confirming the bombshell disclosure by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani — a new member of the president’s legal team — that Trump reimbursed his personal attorney Michael Cohen for a $130,000 “hush money” payment to actress Stephanie Clifford, whose stage name is Stormy Daniels. The statement appeared to flatly contradict Trump’s previous assertion that he was unaware of the payment.
“Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA,” Trump tweeted. “These agreements are very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels).”
The president added: “The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair, despite already having signed a detailed letter admitting that there was no affair. Prior to its violation by Ms. Clifford and her attorney, this was a private agreement. Money from the campaign, or campaign contributions, played no roll [sic] in this transaction.”
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-admits-reimbursed-cohen-stormy-daniels-hush-money-125017365.html
1 edit
@no1marauder
He is denying he used campaign money. Apparently he doesn't think anybody can prove he did. Maybe he did use campaign money and divided the payments up in portions so nobody can point to a 130,000 number. That is why I am asking if he paid that exact amount to Cohen with campaign money and reported it to the FEC as a legal fee. If he didn't report it to the FEC at all then FEC records are no help except to show he didn't report it.
Can the amount and date of reimbursement be established and was the amount the same as what Cohen paid the hush money?
@metal-brain saidThe FEC is besides the point. I already told you the Manhattan DA isn't going to charge a Federal campaign law violation.
@no1marauder
He is denying he used campaign money. Apparently he doesn't think anybody can prove he did. Maybe he did use campaign money and divided the payments up in portions so nobody can point to a 130,000 number. That is why I am asking if he paid that exact amount to Cohen with campaign money and reported it to the FEC as a legal fee. If he didn't report it to th ...[text shortened]... date of reimbursement be established and was the amount the same as what Cohen paid the hush money?
Yes, there are signed checks.