ADVERTISEMENT

Today will most assuredly be DJT guilty of a felony day.....

-lowcountrydawg

Pillar of the DawgVent
Gold Member
May 20, 2002
18,704
31,011
197
charleston sc usa
Biden will have his press conference, mumbling some mildly coherent jibberish about how he is more fit than DT to be president, and the media will love it.

Congrats. You got him for spending $130k on an NDA for sleeping with a porn star and listing a legal expense as a legal expense. The Country is safe and back on track now.
 
Biden will have his press conference, mumbling some mildly coherent jibberish about how he is more fit than DT to be president, and the media will love it.

Congrats. You got him for spending $130k on an NDA for sleeping with a porn star and listing a legal expense as a legal expense. The Country is safe and back on track now.
was it a legal expense or was it for sleeping with a porn star? It can’t be both.
 
was it a legal expense or was it for sleeping with a porn star? It can’t be both.
An NDA is a legal expense.
A payment of a retainer to a lawyer is a legal expense.

And regardless, does anyone believe Trump walked over, looked over an accountant's shoulder, and said "hey make sure you code that as a legal expense, because according to my knowledge of federal election law, I need to keep myself clean here, and if we code it as "porn star payoff," that will screw me up."

Totally unprecedented. No victim whatsoever here. Happened 8 years ago? Known about the whole time? But just now we are getting around to convicting this terrible crime? Convenient.

It is a trial in search of a crime. Nonetheless, you will hear very soon that Trump has been convicted by a jury "of his peers."
 
An NDA is a legal expense.
A payment of a retainer to a lawyer is a legal expense.

And regardless, does anyone believe Trump walked over, looked over an accountant's shoulder, and said "hey make sure you code that as a legal expense, because according to my knowledge of federal election law, I need to keep myself clean here, and if we code it as "porn star payoff," that will screw me up."

Totally unprecedented. No victim whatsoever here. Happened 8 years ago? Known about the whole time? But just now we are getting around to convicting this terrible crime? Convenient.

It is a trial in search of a crime. Nonetheless, you will hear very soon that Trump has been convicted by a jury "of his peers."
I tend to think he will be convicted, just think they will deliberate thru tomorrow to make it look good. A conviction means race goes down to last day and could go either way. A hung jury and Trump is the overwhelming favorite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cherrydawg
I tend to think he will be convicted, just think they will deliberate thru tomorrow to make it look good. A conviction means race goes down to last day and could go either way. A hung jury and Trump is the overwhelming favorite.
I don't see on the fence voters changing their tune about Biden v Trump based on this. Trump's warts are well known whether a random group of 12 folks in NYC see those warts as a crime or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aadco
An NDA is a legal expense.
A payment of a retainer to a lawyer is a legal expense.

And regardless, does anyone believe Trump walked over, looked over an accountant's shoulder, and said "hey make sure you code that as a legal expense, because according to my knowledge of federal election law, I need to keep myself clean here, and if we code it as "porn star payoff," that will screw me up."

Totally unprecedented. No victim whatsoever here. Happened 8 years ago? Known about the whole time? But just now we are getting around to convicting this terrible crime? Convenient.

It is a trial in search of a crime. Nonetheless, you will hear very soon that Trump has been convicted by a jury "of his peers."
Legal expenses are not tax deductible unless they are ordinary and necessary expenses directly related to the operation of the business.

Not enough just to be a legal expense, even under your broad and largely incorrect definition of the term.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cherrydawg
Biden will have his press conference, mumbling some mildly coherent jibberish about how he is more fit than DT to be president, and the media will love it.

Congrats. You got him for spending $130k on an NDA for sleeping with a porn star and listing a legal expense as a legal expense. The Country is safe and back on track now.
Yep. And she only came forward because he was running for president. A cash grab for her as I am sure some Democrat put her up to it as well. We put the former president on trial for this. We broke a precedent that never has happened in U.S. history to get him on trying to cover up what the other side started from the get go. It can’t be more stupid than that. That is what really happened here. The rest is just spin.

What is worse is I was sure he had sex with her before the trial. She has now told five different stories of how this happened. One of them on camera. I am doubtful it even happened now.
 
Last edited:
An NDA is a legal expense.
A payment of a retainer to a lawyer is a legal expense.

And regardless, does anyone believe Trump walked over, looked over an accountant's shoulder, and said "hey make sure you code that as a legal expense, because according to my knowledge of federal election law, I need to keep myself clean here, and if we code it as "porn star payoff," that will screw me up."

Totally unprecedented. No victim whatsoever here. Happened 8 years ago? Known about the whole time? But just now we are getting around to convicting this terrible crime? Convenient.

It is a trial in search of a crime. Nonetheless, you will hear very soon that Trump has been convicted by a jury "of his peers."
dims all in…fairness of the judge be damned.
 
Legal expenses are not tax deductible unless they are ordinary and necessary expenses directly related to the operation of the business.

Not enough just to be a legal expense, even under your broad and largely incorrect definition of the term.
This would qualify as a nuisance suit and companies settle these types of cliams all the time. This case is simply judicial silliness because there is no way to determine that the payment was solely for the benefit of the campaign.
 
Legal expenses are not tax deductible unless they are ordinary and necessary expenses directly related to the operation of the business.

Not enough just to be a legal expense, even under your broad and largely incorrect definition of the term.
Companies write off legal expenses related to NDAs and payments attached to NDAs all the time. They can absolutely do it. They might be allowed or disallowed by the IRS, but that’s not what is being adjudicated here.
 
I'm sure he is going to get convicted....of something. I doubt the jury can explain what law was broken, or how Trump broke it.....But they will find him guilty.

I'd love to hear them say, "Trump violated ________ when he ___________. "

Instead of "He's guilty of....whatever"
 
Do you think Donald or Joe or any other high powered person does their own accounting?
I know they don't.

But...I know Donald for a fact signs all his checks with a sharpie...and he claims to know the tax code better than anyone (his words). 🤷‍♂️

Do you think a micromanager like trump doesn't know where $30k checks are going each month? And what they are for?

If common sense connects joe to all of hunters indiscretions...then it's not hard to connect all the dots for trump here.
 
An NDA is a legal expense.
A payment of a retainer to a lawyer is a legal expense.

And regardless, does anyone believe Trump walked over, looked over an accountant's shoulder, and said "hey make sure you code that as a legal expense, because according to my knowledge of federal election law, I need to keep myself clean here, and if we code it as "porn star payoff," that will screw me up."

Totally unprecedented. No victim whatsoever here. Happened 8 years ago? Known about the whole time? But just now we are getting around to convicting this terrible crime? Convenient.

It is a trial in search of a crime. Nonetheless, you will hear very soon that Trump has been convicted by a jury "of his peers."
An NDA is a legal expense but, if it is a personal legal matter you can't deduct it as a business expense.
If I get my lawyer to draft a will for me it is a personal expense. I can't claim as an expense for my business.
 
I have not followed this at all. That being said...if the charge is an alleged payoff being expensed why is this not an IRS issue? Or is it? I was thinking this was a state trial.
 
Last edited:
I have not followed this at all. That being said...if the charge is an alleged payoff being expensed why is this not an IRS issue? Or is it? I was thinking this was a state trial.
Not an IRS issue. There is a state income tax fraud element here that is one of the underlying issues. Cohen paying income tax when he shouldn't be is technically tax fraud. The state doesn't have to incur injury for fraud to occur. Fraud is fraud.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cherrydawg
Not an IRS issue. There is a state income tax fraud element here that is one of the underlying issues. Cohen paying income tax when he shouldn't be is technically tax fraud. The state doesn't have to incur injury for fraud to occur. Fraud is fraud.
Where did the State argue this? If this was a simple state tax fraud argument, why wasn't Trump charged with it?

What single witness or any other evidence was presented to support this charge?

In a non-bizzaro world, a defendant is presented with actual charges & allowed to present a defense against those charges.

In a non-banana republic, the prosecution and jury instructions aren't allowed to present possible "choose your own adventure" options, after the defense is out of options to present all arguments.

Everything about this case is stupid & the bipartisan legal commentary has been consistent with this. Defending this travesty is beyond the pale.
 
I know they don't.

But...I know Donald for a fact signs all his checks with a sharpie...and he claims to know the tax code better than anyone (his words). 🤷‍♂️

Do you think a micromanager like trump doesn't know where $30k checks are going each month? And what they are for?

If common sense connects joe to all of hunters indiscretions...then it's not hard to connect all the dots for trump here.
Common sense and the big guy getting his cut. More than that Joe lied about having any contact with hunters business partners. He did numerous times corroborated by witnesses. At the very least he just lied to you. At the worst he is selling out influence. There is that threatening convo where hunter claims the big guy is in the room with him.

We are trying someone for trying to cover up a controversy created by political opponents. Using someone who would literally do anything for cash. This is what we are trying a former president for. First time ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgdocindosta
The stupidest part of this thread is multiple posters making arguments re: Trump's guilt that the prosecution didn't even attempt (because it wasn't a crime or there was zero evidence)

Did any of you actually follow the trial?

Good grief.
 
Not an IRS issue. There is a state income tax fraud element here that is one of the underlying issues. Cohen paying income tax when he shouldn't be is technically tax fraud. The state doesn't have to incur injury for fraud to occur. Fraud is fraud.

Sigh.

You can't convict a defendant of a crime he hasn't been charged with.

You cant convict a defendant for having sex.

You cant convict a defendant for paying hush money.

You cant convict a defendant for protecting his/her reputation, while running for office.

The whole thing is stupid, and an unapologetic effort to hurt Trump's election chances. The whole trial is rotten to the core, and I don't know how any rational adult would think otherwise.
 
Where did the State argue this? If this was a simple state tax fraud argument, why wasn't Trump charged with it?

What single witness or any other evidence was presented to support this charge?

In a non-bizzaro world, a defendant is presented with actual charges & allowed to present a defense against those charges.

In a non-banana republic, the prosecution and jury instructions aren't allowed to present possible "choose your own adventure" options, after the defense is out of options to present all arguments.

Everything about this case is stupid & the bipartisan legal commentary has been consistent with this. Defending this travesty is beyond the pale.

Too add to that,

In a non-bizarro world, the prosecution doesn't bat .999 on objections, while the defense bats. 099..

The judge actually allows a person to mount a reasonable defense.

The judge doesn't severely restrict one witness, while allowing others to say whatever they want.

The judge doesn't make one side play by a different set of rules, than the other.
 
I have only half heartedly followed this trail so my only question at this point is

What is the actual charge (s) he is being charged with?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wwforest
I have only half heartedly followed this trail so my only question at this point is

What is the actual charge (s) he is being charged with?
Falsifying business records in the 1st degree 34 times. It requires an underlying crime or intent to commit be identified but not charged. Supported by case law in NY.
 
Not an IRS issue. There is a state income tax fraud element here that is one of the underlying issues. Cohen paying income tax when he shouldn't be is technically tax fraud. The state doesn't have to incur injury for fraud to occur. Fraud is fraud.
Even if it were fraud (it isn’t), Trump’s team literally didn’t know the charges until yesterday. Google 5th Amendment. There is no way this is constitutional, but they don’t care about that, they want to tie Trump up in court and label him a felon.
 
Falsifying business records in the 1st degree 34 times. It requires an underlying crime or intent to commit be identified but not charged. Supported by case law in NY.
You left out the part about this being a misdemeanor and that the statute of limitations had expired. They tied it to another undisclosed crime to make it a felony. This case has 5th amendment issues all over it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zingerdawg
Legal expenses are not tax deductible unless they are ordinary and necessary expenses directly related to the operation of the business.

Not enough just to be a legal expense, even under your broad and largely incorrect definition of the term.
Only if the NDA is to conceal sexual abuse, which wasn’t even claimed or proven by the prosecution. An affair doesn’t qualify.
Of course, it is taxable for the person receiving the payment.
In addition, if it was proven the receiver was lying to extort money from the payee that’s another crime. I personally think that is unlikely but Trump has been proven to be telling the truth so many times I wouldn’t be surprised if this was actually the truth.

Bottom line is the Dems can’t win on this one.
They get a conviction, Trump looks even more like a victim.
He gets acquitted, obviously it proves it was a political attack
They get a hung jury and immediately retry him. He gets handcuffed and muzzled for another 2 months. This is undoubtedly his best result. Keeping him away from a microphone prevents him from saying something that will get twisted on him.

Biden is a brand that can’t be repaired. He ran in 2020 on “im the nice guy”. Well, everyone sees what an asshole he is and can feel his incompetence every time they buy groceries. So, the choice is, an Asshole with a great economy or an asshole with a garbage economy. Doesn’t seem like a tough choice.
 
Too add to that,

In a non-bizarro world, the prosecution doesn't bat .999 on objections, while the defense bats. 099..

The judge actually allows a person to mount a reasonable defense.

The judge doesn't severely restrict one witness, while allowing others to say whatever they want.

The judge doesn't make one side play by a different set of rules, than the other.
The amount of absolute BS and lies about this case that are being propagated is very telling about the fundamentals of the case.

Someone above suggested that there is no victim of the crimes Trump is accused of. That's false. If Trump committed crimes in his efforts to suppress unflattering information before the election, then the US electorate is the victim. Some of you forget how damaging the pu##sygrab tape was and the primary defense was that it was simply "lockeroom talk". Any other candidate and that tape alone would have ended their candidacy.

From Hope Hicks:
"Hicks explained that the impact of the tape’s release was devastating in and outside the campaign. A telling detail she shared Friday: The public impact was so dominant that the initial 36 hours of coverage pushed a category 4 hurricane that was about to make landfall on the East Coast out of the news. Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo lingered for a bit over his questioning on the anecdote, and with good reason. Hicks’ implication was that this was a category 5 hurricane — or higher. That explains why Trump and his campaign could not afford another damaging sex scandal in the immediate aftermath of the tape."

If the news that Trump had gotten a BJ from a porn star became public, it might have very well resulted in a different outcome in a very close election. How do we know? Because Trump told Hope Hicks he was glad he was dealing with the issue after the election. She knew it was such devastating testimony that she cried while delivering it.



So, let's catalog some of the lies told about this trial, many of which I've fact checked with Fox News.

The defense did no lose all of their objections.



Trump was not being treated unfairly by the prosecution going last and the Judge did not prevent Brad Smith from testifying.



Trump was not prevented from testifying due to the gag order, which is one of the more absurd lies in a sea of them.



Cohen's testimony was not the only damaging testimony. In fact, Trump's defense team completely failed to address or even mention the testimony of Pecker or Hicks in their closing argument.



Trump's claims that he doesn't understand the charges against him are a lie and he was not denied his fifth amendment rights to know them.




And in coming back to a theme, there have not been huge crowds of supporters showing up or attempting to show up outside the trial.


 
Last edited:
Even if it were fraud (it isn’t), Trump’s team literally didn’t know the charges until yesterday. Google 5th Amendment. There is no way this is constitutional, but they don’t care about that, they want to tie Trump up in court and label him a felon.
Trump's team has been aware of the 3 underlying elements for over a year. A 4th was presented and rejected by the "liberal activist" judge.
 
Trump's team has been aware of the 3 underlying elements for over a year. A 4th was presented and rejected by the "liberal activist" judge.
Trump was asked by the judge on April 14th if he understood the charges and he answered that yes, he understood the charges.

The idea that his legal team made it to closing arguments without understanding the charges is idiotic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jlstone412
The amount of absolute BS and lies about this case that are being propagated is very telling about the fundamentals of the case.

Someone above suggested that there is no victim of the crimes Trump is accused of. That's false. If Trump committed crimes in his efforts to suppress unflattering information before the election, then the US electorate in the victim. Some of you forget how damaging the pu##sygrab tape was and the primary defense was that it was simply "lockeroom talk". Any other candidate and that tape alone would have ended their candidacy.

From Hope Hicks:
"Hicks explained that the impact of the tape’s release was devastating in and outside the campaign. A telling detail she shared Friday: The public impact was so dominant that the initial 36 hours of coverage pushed a category 4 hurricane that was about to make landfall on the East Coast out of the news. Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo lingered for a bit over his questioning on the anecdote, and with good reason. Hicks’ implication was that this was a category 5 hurricane — or higher. That explains why Trump and his campaign could not afford another damaging sex scandal in the immediate aftermath of the tape."

If the news that Trump had gotten a BJ from a porn star became public, it might have very well resulted in a different outcome in a very close election. How do we know? Because Trump told Hope Hicks he was glad he was dealing with the issue after the election. She knew it was such devastating testimony that she cried while delivering it.



So, let's catalog some of the lies told about this trial, many of which I've fact checked with Fox News.

The defense did no lose all of their objections.



Trump was not being treated unfairly by the prosecution going last and the Judge did not prevent Brad Smith from testifying.



Trump was not prevented from testifying due to the gag order, which is one of the more absurd lies in a sea of them.



Cohen's testimony was not the only damaging testimony. In fact, Trump's defense team completely failed to address or even mention the testimony of Pecker or Hicks in their closing argument.



Trump's claims that he doesn't understand the charges against him are a lie and he was not denied his fifth amendment rights to know them.




And in coming back to a theme, there have not been huge crowds of supporters showing up or attempting to show up outside the trial.



You've stretched reality as far as you can, to make Trump look as bad as you can.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT