Trump indicted over hush money payments in Stormy Daniels probe

You seriously didn't read the statement of facts?

 

Thanks... that's what I figured...

 

This is like a clown show. Try reading past paragraph 2 next time.

Let me know when you're all caught up.

 

Funny that the 2 sentences you didn't bold (or read) contradict your statement that Cohen determined the eventual amount...

I wonder if you can noodle out what TO CFO stands for...

It's almost like you WANT to look foolish here... Why would that be?

Total clown show

 

Go back and reread the conversation and then read the statement of facts, for the first time, and get back to me.

 

Here it is folks, grounds for dismissal. It’s a quick one minute read and there’s a link to an archived Facebook page. The people who attended that event are all potential witnesses to what Bragg said.

Now can someone explain to me why Bragg would want to talk about Trump say a fundraising event.



Report: Manhattan DA Bragg Attended Fundraising Event To ‘Discuss Donald Trump’


A since-deleted Facebook post appears to provide new evidence that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg intended to target former President Donald Trump from the earliest days of his campaign for his current office.

The deleted page, uncovered by Real Clear Investigations reporter Paul Sperry, dated April 25, 2021, says, “Please join me on Tuesday in a conversation with Dan Goldman as we discuss the Dereck Chauvin verdict, Donald Trump, and what’s at stake for the next #ManhattanDA. #JusticeCantWait. #JusticeForAll.”

https://conservativebrief.com/report-manhattan-72382/

 

A payment to secure an NDA is a legal expense.

 

It's like a little puzzle... See if you can figure out, assuming the SOF is accurate, how much Cohen and Weisselberg agreed to orginally and then how much Weissleberg added? I space the SOF out, for your comfort of reading (like that'll help)...

SNIP
The TO CFO and Lawyer A agreed to a total repayment amount of $420,000.

They reached that figure by adding the $130,000 payment to a $50,000 payment for another expense for which Lawyer A also claimed reimbursement, for a total of $180,000.

The TO CFO then doubled that amount to $360,000 so that Lawyer A could characterize the payment as income on his tax returns, instead of a reimbursement, and Lawyer A would be left with $180,000 after paying approximately 50% in income taxes.

Finally, the TO CFO added an additional $60,000 as a supplemental year-end bonus.
ENDSNIP

No time limit... Feel free to use a calculator... take all night if you need to..

 

Not a legal fee.
The settlement amount and the legal fees incurred in order to achieve the settlement are treated differently.
In this case, it seems as though the parties attempted to hide the payment for the NDA - and the reimbursement of that payment to Cohen - by falsely calling it legal fees. Which it wasn’t.

 

Of course it's a legal expense. Businesses have been listing NDA costs as expenses forever. In fact, Congress passed a law forbidding it only for sexual assault related issues in the Harvey Weinstein aftermath because it was so common and they didn't want it for something that could do a disservice to the #MeToo movement. Otherwise, it's fair game. The question for Bragg isn't whether or not it's a legal expense, it's whether Trump should have paid it out of his Organization or his campaign. Bragg believes he needed to chalk it up to his campaign. However, John Edwards did that and was prosecuted by the DOJ claiming an NDA of that nature cannot be 100% for the benefit of the campaign. Businesses engage in all sorts of legal settlements all the time.

 

Yes it is completely on her. The payment was not a violation at all. Nor is it anyone’s fault but here for taking it. No one forced her. The feds alrdy ruled this.

 

Will the real Alvin Bragg please stand up.

Paul Sperry on Twitter: "NEW: This deleted post from DA Alvin Bragg's Facebook reveals ActBlue organized a fundraising event for Alvin Bragg and former Schiff impeachment counsel Dan Goldman to "discuss Donald Trump and what's at stake for the next #ManhattanDA. #JusticeCantWait" https://t.co/Ox9HqMeg0J" / Twitter

 

He was also on a radio show where the hosts asked him how he was gonna get Trump. He bragged about suing Trump over 100 times and said he knows how to nail Trump and his family. If that's what people want they should vote for him. Then he walked it back by saying something along the lines of, "I have to be careful what I say here so I can prosecute him later." He campaigned on getting Trump. This is not a coincidence or a surprise. The only surprise here is how flagrantly flimsy his charges are.

 

I take it that Bragg has never learned the meaning of loose lips sink ships. Looks like his won't be sailing for much longer.
If this thing does ever make it to trial, Trump's attorneys will rip him a new one.

 

This judge has a hard on for getting Trump too so I don't think it will matter. The charges being so flimsy is likely the best thing going for Trump. Bragg is looking to make a spectacle of this just in time for the first primary election votes. Will the judge want to play into that or will he uphold the law and tell Bragg he needs more substance if he doesn't want the case thrown out. Time will tell.

 

And the judge gave Trump’s team eight months to dig up more stuff on Bragg. Bragg might regret this real bad.

 

Not legal fees. Of course it’s an expense. But it isn’t legal fees.

 

I imagine the LEGAL team will spend some of that time trying to come up with a valid defense.... The ratfuckers will do what they always do...

 

You seem to be backtracking, and I'm not sure where our wires are getting crossed. This case concerns the Trump Organization listing in their INTERNAL ledgers that the invoices paid to Cohen were labeled with a generic "legal expense" entry. Bragg seems to be saying that entry is a crime because it should have been entered into Trump's campaign expense sheet and should not have been listed under the Trump organization. There's no dispute that the NDA settlement isn't a legal expense.

Your previous claim was that the NDA settlement paid to a third party is not a legal expense. That's false. It's a legal expense and was properly listed as such. This is why the case is so confusing, and Bragg's lack of candor is being criticized. He's accusing Trump of paying for the NDA out of the Trump Organization rather than his federal campaign. But, Bragg has no authority to enforce federal campaign finance laws. And it's not even a violation of federal campaign finance laws.

 

I don’t know exactly what Bragg will try to prove, but an NDA is not legal fees. That is what someone else claimed. That it could be recorded as legal fees. And it seems quite clear that these guys conspired to hide the substantive payment as legal fees.
I don’t know if that’s illegal.
But the payment for the NDA ain’t legal fees.

 

This case is solely about their INTERNAL ledger notes in their bookkeeping software. The only "documents" Bragg is charging them with are their internal documents. This isn't about anything they've filed with the state. They labeled the invoice payments to their attorney for his time and the NDA as a "legal expense" internally. Both are legal expenses. It is an accurate description.

 

Actually they were labeled as a "Retainer" which they were not.

 

If they received an invoice for fees, and it wasn’t really for fees, and they wrote a check knowingly paying a false invoice … it seems to me they falsified some records. But hey, I’ll leave that up to Bragg.

BTW I’m interested in knowing how you know the details of the trump organization bookkeeping and records. Got a link for what you claim?

 

Check descriptions were for Retainer and the monthly payment. Their ledger notes were "legal expense." They had a retainer agreement with Cohen.

Bragg's own words:


These were not falsely described as a "legal expense." They are legal expenses.

 

The source is Bragg, see above. He released a document alongside the indictment to justify his actions.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/read-the-trump-indictment-document-00087925