Trump Was Fined $9,000 For Speaking

Huh? Straw man fallacy.

 

I didn't call StillBlue a liar. I invite you, once again, to read. I'm sorry that you think that all gag orders are unconstitutional, but that is false.

 

Yes. Do you require me to explain what a straw man is or do you get it? You claimed I had called NDAs during a campaign illegal. Reading would resolve that misconception. Lying about the fact that they are campaign contributions is what's illegal.

 

That is your claim. You said it's a crime to engage in an NDA that helps a campaign. And you awkwardly said NDA's aren't legal expenses for some strange reason. Just because an NDA benefits a campaign doesn't mean you can't engage in one. And NDA payments are always legal expense. It's kind of the definition of a legal expense. You're paying for a legal contract. People and businesses engage in them all the time.

 

Please try reading. No, I didn't say it was illegal. I said it wasn't a legal expense. Do you need me to dumb down what a legal expense is? I can do so, if we have really reached that point. No, "Not a legal expense" does not mean and has never meant "illegal." Do you know what a legal expense is?

My lunch with a client is an expense that is not illegal, but I can't call it a "legal expense," because (despite what your ilk claim) that phrase actually has a meaning.

 

You responded to my question, "where's the crime" in logging an NDA as a "legal expense" with saying it's "never a legal expense" if there is a campaign benefit. That's false. Completely false. Absurdly false. Bigly false! There is no realm of possibility in which your statement can be even remotely true. Paying for an NDA contract is always a legal expense. And signing an NDA that also benefits a campaign is not a crime. Sad!

 

Since you still won't read or learn, a "legal expense" does not mean any and all expenses that are legal to engage in, as opposed to illegal. A legal expense is, for example, an expense to your lawyer for their legal services. Congrats. You learned something today. LYING about the purpose of the expense was the crime. Let me know if you still don't get it. I'm not sure I can dumb it down any more than that, but I can try.

 

I'm sure they will, although returning a verdict in a few minutes would really show that "the fix was in." The jury will sit around for a couple hours or so before they come back with their "guilty" verdict. It's like OJ trial. These Democrat jurors would never be swayed by the facts. These trials are being held in places like New York City, Washington,DC and Atlanta because the Democrats know that it's impossible for Trump to get a fair trial in any of those locations.

All the Democrats need to do is keep the crap up until Election Day. If the Democrats win, mission accomplished! If they lose, they will start rioting in the streets like they did during the summer of 2020. The riots will all be "Trump's fault" and conducted to "save democracy."

The icing on the cake will be a few terrorist attacks conducted by the illegals Biden has let into the country with his open borders policy. That will be "Trump's fault" too, even though he didn't let people on the Terrorist Watch List into the country. Biden did.

 

the grand jury thinks there is, now it's up to the jury

 

the jury has a gag order for the time frame of this trial.... by Trumper logic, it's "Freedom of speech" to talk about it with friends and family - it's just speach is what they say

 

You don't need to dumb it down. I knew where your confusion was several post ago. Making it more apparent doesn't help your case.

Let me catch you up on the case and the discussion. Stormy Daniels worked with Trump's legal team to negotiate an NDA. She promised not to speak of an alleged affair publicly and in return she would get a sum of money. Michael Cohen paid for the NDA out of his own pocket and then invoiced Trump for "legal expenses." Trump did not have a retainer with Cohen at the time of the payments. The ledger and checks to reimburse Cohen along with the service fee for his legal work were all annotated as "legal expense" by a bookkeeper. That in and of itself isn't a crime. But Trump is charged with "false" records because prosecutors say this wasn't an appropriate way to report the transactions between Trump and Cohen.

An NDA is a legal contract and any settlement or payments for legal services and settlements are legal expenses. Businesses and celebrities do this all the time to protect their personal, professional, and political image.

Now some history for you. The DoJ has a history of prosecuting presidential candidates who bill their campaigns for services that also provide some personal benefit... such as John Edwards billing expensive haircuts for TV/press appearances. Since there was personal benefit they alleged it was illegal to pay for it out of campaign funds.

The FEC and DOJ looked at this NDA paid out of his professional accounts and determined it wasn't a campaign expense and the ledger wasn't inaccurate. Trump received no sanction, fine, or charges. The investigation was closed.

But a candidate in that election did get sanctioned for hiding legal fees. Hillary Clinton hid the fact that she paid for the Steele Dossier because she didn't want the Congress, the DoJ, or the public knowing it was all part of her campaign misinformation strategy. It had no other personal or professional benefit and therefore needed to be properly accounted for.

 

You still aren't understanding. Perhaps I do need to dumb it down more. No, it isn't a legal expense. Calling it a legal expense is a lie on Trump's part. And, no, it not being a legal expense does not mean that NDAs are illegal. The more you know.

Trump is in trouble because he lied about the payments.

 

What type of expense is it? This should be good. Paying his lawyer for services is what type of expense? Rent? Paying for a legal agreement is what type of expense? Office supplies?

Tell me specifically what category of expense paying for an attorney's services and an NDA is. If you had to sum it up in one word, what would you call it?

 

With all due respect, during my studies about Roman emperors and the coins they issued, the Western Empire really started to go down hill when they hired the barbarians or near barbarians to guard their borders and expected anything good to come of that. Before then, there were years, like 69 AD when there were four emperors in one year. The losers were either murdered or committed suicide. In 193 AD, there were five emperors. One them paid a bribe to become emperor and was dead nine weeks later.

There was rot, but it was centuries before the Western Empire disappeared sometime before 500 AD, depending whose interpretation you accept.

 

The problem is not political adversaries calling him a liar, it's his blatent lying that makes him a liar. There is no excuse for that. A blatant liar should have no platform under any circumstances.

 

Wow ! That sounds like some serious paranoia!

Any room in there for the possibility that Trump is actually a felon ? It’s actually a simpler explanation for events and doesn’t require scheming Democrats and crooked judges and prosecutors.
Not possible?

 

It is not an attack on the first amendment. I'm saying that a chronic liar should have no platform given to him nor should anyone that subscribes to truth pay a bit of attention to him unless he discovers a way to present truth or near to it.
If someone stands in 5th Ave claiming aliens are landing next Tue unless he raises $5 million should FOXNEWS give out his PayPal account for donations? Or should they report that a mentally ill man was taken to Belvue?

 

Sorry I didn't mean to suggest that the Roman Empire failed because of hatred. I just see operating from a position of hatred does no good to anything. I only suggested that we are failing from within like the Roman Empire did. Sorry for the confusion.

 

I agree as long as you include Michael Cohen. But he will get a platform anyway. Whether people believe what he says is anyone's guess.

 

Of course. The grand jury was most likely not informed of the things I posted. My point was that what the jury decides is immaterial to either side. It isn't about crime or verdict. It is about an upcoming election.

 

Sure. But what they decide isn't the issue. The issue is the upcoming election. Many legal experts consider the gag order to be unconstitutional, by the way. He is speaking not inside or outside the law. He is speaking outside a gag order.

 

And do you possibly think that he is innocent?

 

the grand jury only evaluates if the DA has enough to go forward with the case, it's not where you dispute the case

 

What you said is "Paying hush money to help a campaign is not, and has never been, a "legal expense."" While true there is no evidence that the purpose was to help a campaign. So far the testimony says it was to hide the indiscretions from his wife. It was investigated by the election commission and the DOJ. They decided there was nothing criminal and dropped it.

 

And your point is what? Grand jurors aren't subjected to the defense. They bought the legal mumbo jumbo.