Below is an expanded version of my New York Post column on the appearance of Michael Cohen Monday in the Manhattan prosecution of former President Donald Trump. His testimony will not be for the intestinally weak or ethically strong viewers. It has all the draw of a Nascar race on a rainy day.
Here is the column:
Michael Cohen is to criminal justice what car crashes are to Nascar: few want to admit it, but he is the perverse draw for the wreck-obsessed. The difference is that Cohen was already a rolling smoking wreck when he pulled up to the track.
Even for those of us who have long been critics of this case and its dubious legal theory, it has been surprising to see that the prosecutors had no more evidence than what we previously knew about. The assumption was that no rational prosecutor would base a major criminal case virtually entirely on the testimony of Michael Cohen who was just recently denounced by a judge as a serial perjurer peddling “perverse” theories in court.
The calculus of Alvin Bragg is now obvious. He is counting on the jury convicting Trump regardless of the evidence. He believes that all he needs is to check the boxes on the elements of the crime, no matter how unbelievable the vehicle.
The reason is that Bragg likely fears a directed verdict more than a jury verdict. After the government closes its evidence, the defense will move for a directed verdict on the basis that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.
In other words, when the prosecution rests this week, Trump’s counsel will stand and ask Merchan to end the case before it is even given to the jury. Many of us agree with that assessment. After three weeks of testimony, there is still confusion on what crime Trump was allegedly seeking to cover up.
Bragg has vaguely referred to using the denotation of payments to Daniels as “legal expenses” as a fraud committed to steal the election. However, the election was over when those denotations were made. Moreover, many believe that such a characterization for payments related to a nondisclosure agreement was accurate. (Hillary Clinton’s campaign claimed in the same election that hiding the funding for the Steele dossier as legal expenses was perfectly accurate).
Judge Juan Merchan, in my view, has failed repeatedly to protect the rights of the accused in this case. However, he can claim that there was enough alleged to give Bragg the chance to make his case. Thus far he has not done so and, if he is truly neutral, Merchan should grant the motion.
Bragg is counting on not only a motivated jury but a motivated judge to keep this anemic case alive. All he hopes that he needs to do is get this to a Trump-loathing jury to set aside any reasonable doubt. To do that, he found the ultimate motivated witness with a record of saying whatever serves his interests and those of his sponsors.
Even with a New York jury, however, you cannot assume that every juror will jettison doubt when it comes to the unpopular defendant. Yet, Bragg first has to show Merchan that someone claimed to have evidence directly tying Trump to an intentional fraudulent scheme to conceal a crime.
Thus far, Bragg is not even close. Indeed, many of his witnesses helped Trump more than they hurt him on the actual charges.
Bragg started with testimony on the killing of a story by David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer tabloid, on an uncharged transaction to kill a story of a Trump affair with a different woman, Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model.
The relevancy was marginal but the testimony backfired in that Pecker admitted that Trump told him that he knew nothing about any reimbursement to Cohen for any hush money. He further said that he had killed or raised such stories with Trump for decades before he ever announced for president. He also said that he had killed stories for other celebrities and politicians, including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tiger Woods, Rahm Emanuel and Mark Wahlberg.
For good measure, Pecker noted that Cohen often exaggerates and became loud and argumentative.
Witnesses said that Trump likely had a mix of motivations including sparing his family from embarrassment. Daniels’ own counsel contradicted the prosecution’s reference to the payment as “hush money.”
Prosecutors now need Cohen to check virtually every box on his own. It is not enough to say that Trump wanted to hush up the alleged affair. That is no crime and NDAs are common and legal.
Cohen has to say that Trump specifically knew and approved of the characterization of the payments as “legal expenses.” He further has to establish that Trump intended the denotation to conceal the payments for the purposes of election violations or fraud.
That could make this a “he said, he said” case, but only if Trump were to actually testify. However, Merchan’s earlier rulings make such testimony highly unlikely. The court approved a sweeping scope for cross examination if Trump dares to take the stand. No competent lawyer would advise him to do so after Merchan’s rulings.
That is exactly where Bragg wants to be: with a “he said” not a “he said, he said” case. With Trump effectively silenced, Bragg will argue that that is enough to get this to the jury and he can then allow the New York jury to jettison any notion of reasonable doubt when it comes to Donald Trump.
For most people, this cynical calculation will be immaterial when Cohen is called. Calling a convicted, disbarred, serial perjurer to any court is a spectacle in itself. Cohen seems like he has never met an oath that he does not want to break.
Indeed, he appears eager to expand his collection by announcing in the midst of the trial coverage that he is running for Congress. Given the blind rage of many New Yorkers, he could well succeed with single-issue, anti-Trump voters. If so, we will all be back just to see if a vortex to the netherworld opens up when Cohen stands on the House floor and swears that he is taking the oath “without . . . purpose of evasion.”
But before he becomes Rep. Michael Cohen, he will have to appear for his Nascar moment, though he will be the first wreck in search of a race.
This is such a clown show that words fail, but I’ll try anyway. Absurd. Vindictive. Petty. Unbecoming. Pathetic. Sad. Puerile. Unconstitutional. And ultimately, boring.
I have always thought that folks on the East coast (and the wealthy, white savior left in general) were only intelligent and ‘enlightened’ within the tiny confines of bubbles and they call home and the tiny echo chambers that mirror their narcissism back to them they flit around. I have always thought they were the actual bucktoothed Cletuses of America (it’s just that they can afford good dentists), and this farce removes any doubt for me.
Money, especially generational money, does not = intelligence, heart, merit, or worth. The people living in the highest towers are the actual hillbillies. They are making Trump into a martyr, more and more with every passing week, and they are revealing that they would have a tough time fighting their way out of a wet paper sack were it not for their financial advantages and connections. Pathetic. People of this mentality have wrought all of their own ills, and we are at a point where they had better think twice about fleeing their bad decisions and trying to colonize the cities and states where people have been smarter than them, because it isn’t going to fly anymore.
Absurd. Vindictive. Petty. Unbecoming. Pathetic. Sad. Puerile. Unconstitutional.
You said, ” I have always thought that folks on the East coast (and the wealthy, white savior left in general) were only intelligent and ‘enlightened’ within the tiny confines of bubbles and they call home and the tiny echo chambers that mirror their narcissism back to them they flit around. I have always thought they were the actual bucktoothed Cletuses of America (it’s just that they can afford good dentists), and this farce removes any doubt for me.
Money, especially generational money, does not = intelligence, heart, merit, or worth. The people living in the highest towers are the actual hillbillies. ”
Yes, you hit the nail on the head. It is the elite white Democrats who are the true “bitter clingers” – holding on for dear life to the ideas that racism is the biggest problem facing blacks today, that punishing crime is a bad thing, that deviant sexuality os a good thing, – and that us hoi polloi that should reduce our carbon footprint, all while they maintain 2nd homes, extra-large first homes fly hither and yon, and send their brats off to Europe to tromp around having sex and doing drugs.
Not to mention the evil, stupid castration of young boys and the cutting off the breasts of young girls, all based on zero science. And the lawfare stuff. And the shutting off of political speech that they disagree with.
You are so right. This performance by these so called superior people is so head scratching. All they had to do was nothing. Trump loses. Their obsession and hatred for one man has so overtaken their minds that they are giving the election to Trump. No idea why they would think any of this bold faced election interference would work. It’s like they purposely trying to lose
NASCAR is an acronym…National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing
Cohen under oath??
JT states, “But before he becomes Rep. Michael Cohen, he will have to appear for his Nascar moment, though he will be the first wreck in search of a race.”
I have another analogy, a neck tie party. Public hangings had a carnival like atmosphere where you could bring the whole family. Beer & pretzels were often sold there.
Actor Steve McQueen plays Tom Horn, a gun for hire, who was found guilty & hung.
To spare the hangman of any culpability in the killing, and to avoid paying an executioner, local architect James Julian was commissioned to design a new gallows. The device featured a trap door, which was connected to a bucket of water. The weight of the water would, conceivably, create enough pressure to break the trap door, plunging the condemned to their death.
This is the state of the left: a porn star and a known liar to try to bring down Mr. Trump. The prosecution has been “coaching” Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Bragg could not have scrapped the bottom of the barrel any further.
Bragg is not directly prosecuting this case. If you read Weissman’s piece, linked above, then you’d know that the most devastating witnesses against Trump were Hope Hicks, David Pecker and the various recordkeepers, and that Trump’s lawyers didn’t go after them much. Weissman even says that Cohen’s testimony is not entirely necessary because of the strong paper and evidentiary trail that has already been laid. You speak of a “known liar”–Trump is the most-notorious lying politician in US History, and that’s saying a lot. No one is trying to “bring down” Trump–the things he’s charged with are due to his own conduct and choices.
Weissman? Now there’s an unbiased obssrver. 😂
This is brought to the public by a longstanding campaign to get the former President by any means necessary. These are the same whacked weirdos who live in a warped, alternative reality. They hate this nation, all that it stands for and are at the ready to bend any and every rule, to achieve their objectives. They are dripping with seething hatred.
For example (one of many), the “protesters” are showing their true colors as they have more in common with the Nazis. They hate Jews, they hate free speech and strive to shut down any opposing viewpoint.
We are entering new territory in this fragile experiment we call democracy. If not put in check, things will digress into the dangerous. Hopefully, fair minded people will snap out if it and finally say, “No! No more of this Bull excrement! Enough already! Basta!!”
E.M: I have yet to see any anti-Semitic banners, signs or chants. What the protesters are complaining about is the genocide in Gaza–killing and starving of innocent civilians when no one is retaliating against Israel. What Israel is doing is purely vindictive againt the Palestinian people in general–not Hamas–, and will lead to more terrorist groups forming. Not only that, but Israel refuses to allow the Palestinian people to govern themselves and moved 700 thousand Israelis into the West Bank, which is Palestinian territory. Israel has announced it plans to “annex” more Palestinian territory, and won’t even allow outside aid groups to bring in food. Calling such protests anti-semitic or hating of Jews is simply wrong. But MAGA world sees an opportunity to garner support by distorting the situation. That’s wrong, too.
Once again JT obfuscates facts. This is really a simple case. Did trump falsify business records in the payment to Stormy Danials? Cohen has already been convicted of this crime as he was the conduit by which the money went from trump to Stormy. So the next question is, did Cohen do this without the blessing and approval of trump?
If you think Cohen would spend $130,000 of his money as a gift to trump to make this story go away, wow, get off the koolaid, trump is not a god and you really need to look at yourself as a trump cult member.
You’re arguing for a misdemeanor whose statue of limitations has passed.
Maybe you need to lay off the koolaid?
Your TDS appears terminal. May your hate and loathing consume you as an aggressive cancer. You are the cult member of the liberal mental society of misfits.
Everything you said is either legal, or illegal as a misdemeanor but well past the statute of limitations. Turley correctly argues that in order to bring them back to life and make them felonies, you need to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Trump did so with the intent of concealing a crime.
Turley also correctly argues that such a crime has not been mentioned or even alluded to except some vague indirect ramblings from Bragg; almost as if he is throwing things at the wall to see if they’ll stick.
Due process requires that the defendant be made aware of the scope and facts that the prosecution is charging him with. They can’t just cast a wide net and attempt to incriminate him.
If you think Cohen would spend $130,000 of his money as a gift to trump to make this story go away, wow, get off the koolaid,
All the evidence to this point, proves Trump did not ask nor approve of Cohens actions. Actions, again, according to testimony in this Trial, show is not a crime.
I’m ignoring your stupid conclusions, you pretend are facts.
@iowan2.
“All the evidence to this point, proves Trump did not ask nor approve of Cohens actions. Actions, again, according to testimony in this Trial, show is not a crime.”
Cohen testified that he was acting on the direction and request of Trump. Cohen played a phone conversation confirming it in court. Trump did approve of it and asked for it.
George: thanks. Trump also admitted the payoff in that California case involving Stormy Daniels. From NPR, dateline 5/2/2018:
“President Trump admitted Thursday to reimbursing his lawyer for a $130,000 payment made on the eve of the 2016 election to porn actress Stormy Daniels as part of a settlement about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump.
Trump, however, denied any sexual encounter and claims the payment was in no way connected with the campaign — despite the timing.”
My comment was before Cohen’s testimony.
We are back to the law. NDA’s are 100% legal. A lawyer recording a clients phone calls are not.
It’s not clear by any means that a payment to one’s lawyer cannot be called “legal expenses.”
Cohen has already been convicted of this crime as he was the conduit by which the money went from trump to Stormy
Your posts keep contradicting themselves.
It is a legal impossibility for Cohen to be convicted of accounting fraud concerning Trumps records.
Why would Trump pay someone $130,000 to go away so that her allegations would not hurt his election chances AFTER he had already won the election? It makes more sense that he was concerned about the effect it would have on his wife and family.
Turley barely touches on the fact that while Bragg has not come close to proving the only reason for these payments was to influence the election – even if he did – that is not enough.
One of the problems with this case from the start has been that if Bragg could prove everything he claimed he could prove, he STILL does not have a crime.
Influencing elections is PRECISELY what campaigns do. That is the entire purpose of a campaign and it is a legal purpose.
Brag has to prove that Trump ILLEGALLY tried to influence the election.
NDA’s are legal.
Paying for NDA’s is legal.
Doing so to influence an election is legal.
There is no crime within 1000 miles of this case.
There has not from the start.
Trump was charged with 34 counts of something that is arguably not illegal, and even if it were would be a misdemeanor whose statute of limitations expired long ago, UNLESS it was done to cover up a crime.
But there is no indictment for any other crime. There are not charges for any other crime,
and Merchan committed multiple counts of reversable error allowing Bragg to attempt to prove crimes that were not charged.
And now nearing the end of Braggs case – not only was Bragg permitted to present witnesses for uncharged and unindicted crimes,
But those crimes exist only in the heads of left wing nuts who see one clear crime – Winning in 2016.
A crime that is not in any statues anywhere.
It can’t be stressed strongly enough that paying a porn star for her “silence”
has never been a legitimate campaign expense. If Trump had paid Daniels
out of donor campaign funds he would have been prosecuted by the feds
for campaign finance fraud and would have actually been guilty of a crime.
Since paying porn stars off is NOT a legitimate campaign expense, Trump was
free to use his own funds and had ZERO legal obligation to report the payment
to the FEC. There is simply no crime here.
The judge, on this alone, should toss the case before it ever gets to the jury.
Since no felony was concealed the statute of limitations effectively nullifies
the rest of the case.
Both Alvin Bragg and Judge Merchan should be removed from office and disbarred.
Good point. What I am also struggling with is the timing. The alleged act to influence the election was the NDA. That was before Trump’s election but was not a crime. The allegedly false entry of this as legal expenses in furtherance of the alleged illegal act, the NDA, was done AFTER Trump had already been elected. So how can it legally be said to have been done to influence the election? There is no legal connection. Of course the only testimony about the decision to characterize the payment as a legal expense came from the bookkeeper and her boss – basically saying we had limited categories in the software program and he made the decision to use this category. There has been no testimony about Trump knowing about this categorization or directing it. But putting this aside, there is still the issue of the timing – how can the entry have been made in furtherance of an alleged illegal act to influence an election that had already taken place? I just don’t get it.
Nobody is alleging that the record in Trump’s accounts was intended to influence the election. How could it, even if it were made before the election? How could the public possibly have known about it?
The allegation seems to be that Trump instructed Cohen, before the election, to make the payments in order to influence the election, and didn’t report it as a campaign expense. That seems to be the “other crime”, though Bragg has not been clear about it. Then, a year later, when Cohen’s invoice was paid and it went in the books as a legal expense, that was “falsifying a business record” to conceal the “other crime” that happened a year earlier.
But since the “other crime” is an element in this one, surely Bragg has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Which would mean he has first to actually say what it is!
It can’t be stressed strongly enough that paying a porn star for her “silence” has never been a legitimate campaign expense.
Since when? If the purpose was in fact to keep her from harming his election, then it was a legitimate campaign expense, and should have been reported as such. If.
If Trump had paid Daniels out of donor campaign funds he would have been prosecuted by the feds
for campaign finance fraud
Only if they were to claim the real purpose was not to keep her from harming his election.
@john say,
“Trump was charged with 34 counts of something that is arguably not illegal, and even if it were would be a misdemeanor whose statute of limitations expired long ago, UNLESS it was done to cover up a crime.”
He was charged with falsifying business records. It’s illegal in NY. The statute of limitations is irrelevant. The charges were filed before the statutes of limitations expired. Trump’s numerous delays only makes it look like the SOL expired.
Bragg is still using this case to prove Trump violated 17-152. He’s already got Cohen saying on the stand Trump directed the him to produce the false records to hide the payments to Daniels because Cohen already stated it would have been highly damaging to the campaign.
17-152 is not about campaign influence. It’s about a conspiracy to promote election to public office. Hiding the story by falsifying business records to promote election to office is the crime.
And yes, there ARE charges for crimes. 34 to be exact.
George: thanks. Apparently MAGA media haven’t focused on Hope Hicks’s testimony in which she swore that the Access Hollywood tape seriously hurt Trump’s image. Another woman coming forward with a story about a sexual tryst right after Melania had just given birth to Barron might have doomed his campaign entirely. Hicks’s testimony put the entire payoff scenario in context with the election, and was critical.
17-152 is not about campaign influence. It’s about a conspiracy to promote election to public office.
No, it isn’t. That isn’t and can’t be a crime. NY can’t make it a crime. 17-152 is about a conspiracy to do so by unlawful means. So Bragg has to allege that there was something unlawful about the payments to Daniels. And what is that? Even failure to report it as a campaign expense wouldn’t be enough, because that failure wasn’t for the purpose of influencing the election. The payments were (allegedly), but that’s not unlawful, and therefore doesn’t violate 17-152.
Agreed – He has always been Family First, like any responsible Father.
And he also realized that because of the inevitable Democrats: This Day Would Come.
-TRA
“Family First”–really? WHICH family? The one with Ivana, in which he attacked her physically and sexually when she didn’t show enough sympathy for the pain following his scalp-reduction surgery to hide his baldness and during which he conceived Tiffany with Marla Maples? Or, the second marriage with Maples, in which he also cheated on her? Or, the current “family” in which he tells a casual sexual acquaintance that he and his wife don’t share a bedroom, and he cheats on her like a dog, including with a porn actress, didn’t use a condom and therefore risked pregnancy and/or an STD, and in which his current wife had to stop him from using her son as a campaign prop? Then, there’s the bragging about kissing women he finds “beautiful” and grabbing them by their genitalia. If there’s anything people with any sense can plainly see, it’s that Trump is anything but a “responsible Father” or “Family First” husband. He is a selfish self-absorbed narcissist.
Huh?! The payment wasn’t after the election, it was before the election. The reimbursement, and the recording it as legal expenses, was after the election.
And no one is claiming Cohen paid the money as a gift to Trump. Obviously he expected to be reimbursed. The question is whether Trump was involved in this decision. The evidence seems to show that Trump did not involve himself in that sort of thing and trusted Cohen to take care of whatever needed taking care of, and to bill him for it. In which case there is not even the beginning of a crime.
Cohen certainly had no involvement in or knowledge of how Trump recorded the reimbursements in his own personal accounts. Nor is it clear to me why it’s anyone’s business how he recorded them, or why “falsifying” his own personal accounts should be a crime in the first place.
What’s awesome about this case is watching Trump hang himself. This is a case about financial fraud not about sex. But Trump wants his attorneys to run the case as if it’s about whether he had sex with Stormy Daniels. That’s what Trump is concerned about, being outed as a liar. LOL. As if that would be shocking. Trump lies so much, he lies when he doesn’t even have to. To wit, this case. If Trump’s attorneys started this case with, “Yeah, our client had sex with Stormy Daniels… so what?” then they could easily argue that the payment to her was to shut her up to hide it from his wife. Not political at all. Trump walks out of court totally exonerated. But no. He lied about not having sex with Stormy Daniels and he’s sticking to it. Trouble is, he now can’t argue the reason he paid her was to hide it from his wife since he never did it. So why did he pay someone $130,000 to stay quiet about something that never happened? To win an election. The jury is going to convict him.
Bragg has vaguely referred to using the denotation of payments to Daniels as “legal expenses” as a fraud committed to steal the election. However, the election was over when those denotations were made. Moreover, many believe that such a characterization for payments related to a nondisclosure agreement was accurate. (Hillary Clinton’s campaign claimed in the same election that hiding the funding for the Steele dossier as legal expenses was perfectly accurate).
ATS – your own post proves what is wrong with the prosecution of this case.
Bragg is the prosecutior – not Trump.
Merchan erred when he said that Trump made this case about Sex.
Trump does not control the case.
Trump can say in his opening this case is about little green aliens – that does not mean that Bragg can proceed to prove anything that is not relevant to the indictment and charges.
The sex aspect of this is important to Trump, it is important to Daniels, it is important to Bragg.
It is important to left wing nuts such as yourself.
But it is not even relevant to the case.
Contra Merchan and you – Trump does not control the case Bragg does.
And we have had 13 days that have had nothing to do with the charges.
The very little testimoney we have had on the charges establishes there was no fraud.
First Trump’s boookeeper testified that the designation of the payments as legal expenses was his and his alone.
Several witnesses have testified that payments for NDA’s ARE legal expenses.
So there is no falsehood – not by Trump not by anyone.
And that is the end of the entire case.
But it gets WORSE.
Fraud is far more than a false statement.
Fraud requires that statement is to a third party.
There is no third party here.
There is no tax implications to these payments.
They were properly reported on taxes – we have had that testimoney.
There are no tax evasion charges – so Bragg can not even argue tax evasion.
Regardless, the records here – the checks the ledgers are all private internal records.
They are Trump writing to himself.
They are a journal – Litterally.
There are no legal implications at all to “lying to yourself”.
Fraud requires deceiving others. No one outside a handful of people in the Trump organization saw these truthful records that Bragg claims are false.
But Fraud requires still more.
Fraud requires an intentionally false statement. Again the accountant testified Trump did not chose the legal expense designation.
But we are not done yet.
Fraud requires a duty to provide truthful information.
Again these are internal records – like a dairy or journal.
They are used for many purposes – such as determining taxes.
But they are NOT part of a tax return – there is no duty to tell the truth to yourself.
Finally Fraud requires actual harm.
There is no harm here at all.
The government was not deprived of taxes, by records that are accurate, that there never was an obligation to government.
There is OBVIOUSLY no right of anyone, much less the public to know about an NDA – otherwise all NDA’s are illegal.
“Trouble is, he now can’t argue the reason he paid her was to hide it from his wife since he never did it.”
Of course he can. That is an incredibly stupid claim.
Do you really think Melania would be happy about a False story of Trump having sex with a porn star ?
Would your wife ?
” So why did he pay someone $130,000 to stay quiet about something that never happened?”
Why did Trump pay 30,000 to a doorman to kill a false story about an alleged love child with a hispanic maid ?
The Fact that Trump only paid Daniels 130K is pretty strong evidence the story is false.
If the story was true – Daniels would have been able to sell it for 10 times as much.
Hillary paid 1.6M for the steele dossier. I am sure she would have shelled out atleast a million for Daniels story if it were true.
Have you ever read the national enquirer ? They run stupid and unbeleiveable stories all the time.
All stories about politicians the wealthy, and celebrities have value – Pecker testified to that – but you have to be a moron who thinks everything in the National Enquirer (or New York Times) is true not to understand that even false stories have value – just less value than true ones.
Do you honestly beleive that every catch and kill of the National equirer was true ?
Do you really think All the stories about all the people that Turley listed that Pecker testified about were true ?
Some were, some were not. The fact that a story was paid for says very little about whether it is true.
While the truth of this story does not matter at all to this case. Bragg and Daniels failed to prove her story is true.
The money is not enough for a story this significant and true at this moment in time.
It is YOUR and Bragg’s argument that the 2016 election hinged on this story. That had it gone public Hillary would have won.
That clearly makes a true story about sex between Daniels and Trump worth far more than 130K.
Extreme TDS!
Wow- idiot post
Don’t be so hard on yourself.
But no. He lied about not having sex with Stormy Daniels and he’s sticking to it.
Trump is not indicted for lying.
You also have to lie about the Doorman that made up a story, and signed a NDA.
15 witnesses and 150 articles of evidence, and you insist on believing the lies msnbc tell you.
It was extortion, pure and simple.
Extortion has not ever been mentioned as a charge in this trial. Stick to the facts.
No, extortion isn’t a charge, it’s a defense. Though of course the defense won’t actually use that word; but that’s what it amounts to. Daniels extorted money from Cohen (as Trump’s agent).
But Trump wants his attorneys to run the case as if it’s about whether he had sex with Stormy Daniels
The Defense is doing just that. Defending against the witnesses and evidence presented by the prosecution.
Trumps attorneys have no power, yet, to “run the case” Its like you never watched tv show, set around lawyers.
Completely agree he is going to get convicted. This is third world banana republic Laverentia Beria justice with an utterly corrupt judge and and a jury pool filled with anti Trump deranged fanatics who are totally removed from reality!……like you!
This trial is a giant feces Stain to our legal system and New York will suffer because of it for decades to come!!!
Well, the jury probably will convict him, but not because they should.
You’re saying he lied to “win the election”? Dang— EVERYONE does that. We’d have to put every single candidate who’s ever run for office in jail as well as anyone who has ever won an election.
It’s getting to where I laugh out loud at Turley’s sentences that start with “many of us “ followed by blah, blah, blah, — whatever the Fox daily affirmation talking points are. Another thing good for a laugh is his feigned lack of understanding of the charges against Trump. Some of what Turley wrote is just plain not true—that the prosecutor’s case hinges solely on Cohen. This claim ignores the testimony of Pecker, Hicks, Weisselberg and the various Trump record keepers.
Here’s something for you, Turley: many of us believe that with the testimony of Weisselberg, Hicks, Pecker and the others, the prosecutor has already made a prima facie case for falsifying business records by misrepresenting a payoff to Daniels as attorney fees for the purpose of influencing the election.
Many of us also believe that Trump’s lawyers made some serious strategic errors in judgment, probably because Trump demanded that they do his bidding instead of using their own judgment— for, by way of example, trying to slut shame Daniels for being a sex worker and author of pornographic stories, by failing to object to evidence they elicited, by bringing up the “orange turd” memo, which Daniels handled gracefully and then moving for a mistrial based on their own strategic errors. Many of us also believe their motion for judgment on the evidence will fail.
Cohen is not the lynchpin of the prosecutor’s case—they’ve already laid a strong foundation for his testimony which will help blunt the foreseeable attacks on Cohen.
“… the prosecutor has already made a prima facie case for falsifying business records by misrepresenting a payoff to Daniels as attorney fees …”
The payments were recorded in business records as a “legal expense” — which is what they were.
The payments were NOT recorded as “attorney fees.” Stop lying.
Keep telling yourself that.
Weisselberg wrote the word “reimbursement “, and his notes included a reference to extra to cover Cohen’s tax liability . There was no invoice from Cohen for legal fees tied to the payment. Cohen previously testified that Trump told him to use his home equity line of credit so the payment couldn’t be traced back to him.
None of that is what you wrote in the comment I replied to about “… misrepresenting a payoff to Daniels as attorney fees …”
Trump has testified in the California case that he did pay to purchase Daniels’s silence, although he denied the sex—which makes no difference to his criminal liability. Trump organization record keepers have authenticated records containing Weisselberg’s handwritten notes that verify that the payments to Cohen were reimbursement. Record keepers have no invoices for the reimbursement checks. They also testified that large checks had to be approved personally by Trump.
You still don’t get it. Paying for silence isn’t illegal, especially when the purpose is to save embarrassment with one’s wife or prevent damage to one’s business — regardless of whether the accusations are true. Lots of testimony was provided that other celebrities also made similar deals, and none of them were running for president. If paying for silence were illegal, Stormy and the other one would be looking a criminal extortion charges.
There are reasons that charges were refused by the DOJ and even Fatboy Bragg years ago.
You’re just another desperate democrat looking at an election that can’t be won by relying on the voters.
YOU are the one who doesn’t get it because you follow MAGA media. Stormy’s silence was purchased because it came right before the election, in October, 2016, on the heels of the Access Hollywood tape that Hope Hicks testified damaged Trump’s campaign. There was fear that another salacious story might doom his chances entirely–the motivation for the payoff was to help him win the election–not to spare Melania or her feelings. And, the payoff was misrepresented in accounting records as “legal expenses”–which they weren’t–because they were not payments to Cohen for his services. I’d like to know what MAGA media keeps arguing that “legal expenses” include the payoff because Karen S. also keeps trying to argue this—so you both must have gotten it from some MAGA media. For tax and accounting purposes, settlement funds are distinct from fees paid to an attorney for legal services, the latter of which are taxable.
Weisselberg’s handwritten notes prove the total amount paid to Cohen was considered “reimbursement”, doubled to “gross up” the payment to cover Cohen’s tax liability, plus a bonus. Trump is a malignant narcissist–he has no capacity to care for anyone else and everything in his orbit is transactional. Melania is an ornament, just like Ivanka and Hope Hicks were. Ivanka and Hicks had no relevant experience when Trump brought them into the White House –but they are pretty to look at and he is so immature and needy for attention that he thinks being surrounded by beautiful women makes him look powerful–just like Alina Habba, who is so lacking in experience that she doesn’t even know how to get an exhibit entered into evidence. It’s all for show, but when you look underneath the surface, you see someone who is nothing but a blowhard braggart, an attention hog, and someone who did an absolutely horrendous job pretending to be president, taking credit for the successful economy inherited from Obama that he proceeded to destroy, along with our public health and relations with allies. His agenda for 2025 is truly frightening–rolling back consumer and environmental protections, executing federal prisoners, freeing J6 defendants, even those who pleaded guilty, revenge against his perceived enemies, pulling funding from Ukraine so that Putin can “win”, dismantling the Department of Education–just for starters. The sad thing is that so many people fall for his lies, don’t understand how dangerous it is to give power to someone without any morality and are immune to the truth.
While I would not trust anything you say. Your posts are rife with errors,
SO WHAT ?
BTW Cohen sent invoices – you are clearly not following this case – that is already in the record. Trump staff testified that they do not pay anything at all without an invoice – which is NEAR UNIVERSAL business practice. And Cohen’s invoices have been entered into evidence.
Trump did not “approve” these checks he SIGNED THEM. Again you are not following the case.
But the only records regarding Trump and these payments is that Trump signed the checks – in the whitehouse in 2017.
The checks say – Pay to the order of Micheal Cohen. They do not say “legal fees”. And they are signed by Trump.
Trump’s accountant has already testified that HE chose to classify them as Legal Fees.
He and several other prosecution witnesses have testified that is an approriate designation.
Trump’s accountant testified to the specific accounting system that the Trump organization was using.
That each payment had to be coded with a 5 digit expense code and that he used the one for Legal Expenses.
There were comments that Trump’s accounting system was quite old and inflexible.
BTW none of this is unusal. I am a software developer and I spent 20 years writing a fairly sophisticated accounting system.
We had a code for legal fees. That was used for all payments to lawyers.
There was no code for “hush money”.
One of the major standards for accounting is FASB – that defines many things – one of those being a recomended list of coding to record transactions. Please find the code in the FASB standard for “hush money”.
There is none.
One of the many problems with Bragg’s case is that There is absolutely nothing Trump could have done that would not have allowed Bragg to make the same stupid claim he is making.
I would note that 5 digit codes is pretty extensive – though the FASB recomended list is larger.
The norm is that 80% of transactions tend to fall under about 2 dozen codes, and that in a typical year in most businesses, no more than 100 unique transaction codes are used.
Why ? Because accounting records do not exist to track things in that great a detail.
There are two primary purposes for accounting systems in private companies (not publicly traded).
The first but not most important is taxes.
For Tax purposes all expenses fall into one of 3 catagories – fully deductible, partly deductable, and not deductable.
There are a number of additional highly unusual tax catagories that have nothing at all to do with this case.
Legal fees are a fully deductible expense.
NDA payments are a fully deductible expense.
Both require that a 1099 be sent to the persone being paid – in this case those 1099’s have already been entered into evidence.
Michael Cohen owed the taxes on the 430K that he received and was 1099’d for Trump did not.
The government does not care What catagory a legitimately deductable expense is put into – the taxes are the same regardless.
There can be no fraud in reporting to government if there is no misrepresentation of taxes due.
The next purpose for this codes is to track the performance of the business.
Businesses will do year to year comparisons of the payments for office supplies, or petty cash.
Those comparisons are to look for problems or to look for things that are going well.
The purpose of accounting codes is to Agregate expenses – to delerately place each expense in with similar expenses.
In the businesses I have managed I look at Cash flow, cash based P&L, Acrual based P&L every month.
These reports are deliberately structured to be 2-3 pages each – but they catagorize hundreds sometimes thousands of transactions.
It is possible that a interior design firm CEO wants to know regularly how many red couches he purchased.
But most businesses would put Red Couches and blue couches into office furniture, or possibly just into office.
In a private company – and 90% of companies in the US are privately held. The generality of the accounting categories is based on the desire of the upper management for information. Too much information wastes the time of top management. To little prevents them from making good decisions.
The point is that Trump did not lie to the IRS or the state of new york
He is not a publicly traded company – so Bragg’s claim is that Trump lied to himself.
And that is not a crime.
It is also false. Businesses do not use their accounting systems to track what they spend on red couches.
John Say,
Once again, another epic take down of Natasha.
Well done!
LOL — MORON says what? The idiot babbles on — and on and on and on — using the most words EVER to say nothing.
Gigi, New George and Anonymous likely broke the laws involving independent contractors. That is something Trump did not do because Cohen was an independent contractor and was paid as such.
Cohen has to report costs and his fee. In this case, the costs were $130,000 paid by Cohen. Had there been a suit against Trump for a slip and fall in his casino, the attorney would have charged Trump his costs and his fee, just the same as he did with the Stormy Daniels affair.
Trump’s bookkeeping was within the law and reported in a fashion recognized by the IRS. Do Gigi, New George or any of the anonymous posters follow the law like Trump? No.
Gigi, New George and Anonymous, when you pay your housekeeper, did you pay their social security and withholding? Likely not. Did you report the payments as payments to an independent contractor? No again. Should you guys should be prosecuted and jailed? Prosecution is what you wish for Trump, who followed the law.
John Say correctly says, “The purpose of accounting codes is to Aggregate expenses—to delerately place each expense in with similar expenses.” That is done so companies know where the money is spent so they can make good decisions. The second reason is to divide the expenditures in a fashion to report income for taxation to the IRS.
Gigi, New George and Anonymous, you belong in jail for violating the law based on your erroneous interpretations of it. Trump did no such thing. The Bragg case is a political witchhunt.
S. Meyer: I DO report payments to independent contractors on the 1099-MISC form. I’ve practiced law for decades–attorney fees are payable to an attorney and are taxed to the attorney as income. Settlement payments to resolve a lawsuit or dispute payable to a third padrty are not attorney fees and are not taxable to the attorney. Trump ADMITTED he paid off Stormy Daniels. Accounting records prove that the payment was covered up as an “attorney fee” to Cohen, “grossed up” by doubling it to cover his taxes, to make him whole. These matters are not in dispute.
gigi, I also “practiced law for decades,” but as a litigator (100% of my cases). I don’t think you have much experience in that arena, your personality would limit your practice akin to the Michael Cohen-types. If you were my opposing counsel, I would have assigned the case to a subordinate, because even he or she could do figure 8s around you. You are all bark and no bite that makes any legal sense. The only legal things you say are lifted from MSNBC or CNN, etc.
Where the hell do you get off commenting on anyone’s “personality”? Is it because you know that what I wrote is based on actual admitted evidence? When I point out that Trump ADMITTED paying off Stormy, that the accounting records mention “reimbursement” and “grossing up” the 130K by doubling it to cover Cohen’s tax liability–in Weisselberg’s handwriting, no less–ALL OF WHICH ARE TRUE–you attack me and MSNBC. Where are your counter-facts? It’s no wonder you are a fan of a loser like Trump. Are you one of those attorneys who think they score points by attacking opposing counsel when they haven’t any law or facts to argue?
“S. Meyer: I DO report payments to independent contractors on the 1099-MISC form. I’ve practiced law for decades”
If you say so, Gigi, but if true, you are one of the most uninformed and illogical attorneys I ever corresponded with. Likely, you hadIf a housekeeper and did not collect social security or file a 1099. You are a thief according to your definition and should be put in jail. If it wasn’t a housekeeper, we could go through every entry, forgotten or unknown, to find a reason to put you in jail. It is a rare person that hasn’t violated one law or another. That you demonstrate such unfamiliarity with these facts demonstrates you do not have the intellect to be an attorney, and if you are, prospective clients should stay clear of you.
“Accounting records prove that the payment was covered up as an “attorney fee”
It is horrid that you call yourself an attorney, but at least you don’t call yourself an accountant. Trump appropriately handled the payment to Cohen. I don’t know what Cohen did so that I won’t comment.
If you decide to respond, let’s do so intelligently and recognize that the IRS has no complaint about which columns are used as long as they are getting their money. I have listened to enough of your garbage, but if you wish take a singular question of criminality and we can discuss in in depth.
Insulting me isn’t going to change the facts gleaned from admissible evidence. I have never had a housekeeper or gardener or lawn boy or any other household help–I need the exercise. I pay for ad hoc paralegals and compensate expert witnesses and report that on the 1099 MISC form. Your claim that it’s rare that a person hasn’t violated the law–where? in your world? YOU are the one who is unfamiliar with the facts and the law. Trump tried to hide the payoff to Daniels by MISREPRESENTING it as an attorney fee–the amount had to be doubled or, using Weisselberg’s terminology “grossed up” to make Cohen whole–to cover the taxes he had to pay on money that went to Daniels that was NOT for attorney services. THAT’S what the “falsifying” records charge is over–and because the misrepresentation was done to help his campaign–it’s a felony under NY law.
“Insulting me isn’t going to change the facts gleaned from admissible evidence.
Gigi, I insult you because your rhetoric is nothing but insults and lies. When you stop the insults and lies and discuss the facts under question, I will reply with the same decency or lack thereof Currently, you deserve nothing but insults. Now, state your facts with proof in a logical fashion. Quit the insulting lies and rhetoric.
” I have never had a housekeeper ”
You have lied continuously, so why should I believe you? It is common for people hiring a housekeeper (instead of a service) not to pay taxes. If you wish, look at Zoe Baird. She was nominated for the position of Attorney General under Clinton. She withdrew her name when it was found she failed to pay social security taxes for housekeeping services. As I said, this is a common practice. Trump reported the money exchanges so appropriate taxes could be paid. I am surprised you don’t know about these things, especially as a “lawyer.”
“Trump tried to hide the payoff to Daniels by MISREPRESENTING it as an attorney fee.”
You appear dense for a lawyer. Trump paid his lawyer and noted the exchange of funds. If his lawyer charged him for duplicate copies of a form, that would also be represented under legal fees. There is no criminality, and the practice is expected.
“grossed up” to make Cohen whole–to cover the taxes he had to pay on money that went to Daniels.”
Cohen, not Trump, declares that money. Are you unable to get bt anything straight?
” THAT’S what the “falsifying” records charge is over.”
Maybe Cohen falsified his records to the IRS, but Trump did no such thing. He recorded the transfer of money and where it went. No laws exist forcing businesses to break down legal fees into subcategories to include non-disclosure payments. Cohen had to disclose where the funds he received went, and Daniels had to report the payment and pay taxes as well. It doesn’t sound as if you had any ownership of a business or law practice. If you did, you would not have made such claims.
” the misrepresentation was done to help his campaign.”
Again, you are ignorant of the law. If there is another reason for the misrepresentation, one cannot blame the campaign. Trump had other reasons, and you can’t prove he didn’t.
I won’t deal with the NY law you are presenting because it is unconstitutional. You don’t like Trump, which is your prerogative, but that doesn’t give you the right to insult and lie.
Also, misrepresentation to help a campaign is NOT a felony under NY law. It can’t be, because it’s protected speech. The NY felony is falsifying business records in aid of another crime. Helping a campaign is of course not a crime at all. The crime Bragg is alleging the falsification was in aid of is a never-used NY law making it a crime to conspire to affect an election result by unlawful means, which means he needs yet another crime. It’s turtles all the way down.
“Also, misrepresentation to help a campaign is NOT a felony under NY law. It can’t be, because it’s protected speech. “
Anonymous, expect no follow-up response because Gigi is one layer deep, and that layer is almost always insulting rhetoric and lies. There is no need to be pleasant to her. She should be treated like she treats the blog and Professor Turley.
While there are numerous errors in your comment, Even as you present the alleged fact – SO WHAT ?
Not a crime.
I may have missed something – but to my knowledge Weiselburg has not testified. Nor do I expect him to.
He has a long bad history with Merchan and he will take the 5th instantly.
There is absolutely no way Weiselberg is going to walk into another perjury trap – especially with Merchan.
Weiselberg knows without any doubt that if he does not say precisely what Merchan and Bragg want him to, that Merchan will throw him in jail for the rest of his life.
Weiselberg is not going to testify. Not for Bragg, not for Trump.
Next – lets assume that Your/Bragg’s claims are true – Cohen borrowed 130K to pay daniels with the expectation that he would be reimbursed in the future. SO WHAT ? The NDA was legal Reimbursing it was legal, Reimbursing it was legal fees.
One of the many flaws in your arguments and this case is that at every step you require all of us to accept unusual definitions of words.
There is no catagory in FASB accounting standards for Hush money or for NDA’s.
In YOUR theory – Trump paid Cohen for a contract – that is a legal fee. The asset is the NDA a contract – securing it is legal representation, paying for it is legal representation.
But some other Facts which will with certainty come out in Cohen’s testimony.
The NDA was not between Trump and Daniels.
It was between Cohen and Daniels. This came out in prior lawsuits.
If Daniels violated the NDA she owed Cohen – not Trump $1.6M. The NDA was an asset of Cohen’s not Trump’s.
So Trump did not actually buy the NDA. He bough Cohen’s legal work.
It is entirely possible that Trump and Cohen agreed to do this that way.
I am not and no one should beleive a thing Cohen says.
But lets assume in the light most favorable to Bragg that Cohen testifies that he and Trump talked extensively about this.
That after Daniels came to Cohen – because that is already established as a fact.
That Trump told Cohen to get Daniels to sign an NDA, that Cohen should mortgage his house to pay the NDA, and that, after the election Trump would pay Cohen 430K in 12 monthly instalments as legal fees to cover the cost of the NDA.
SO WHAT ?
While that is not what the facts are suggesting occurred, even if that is what Cohen testifies – still no crime.
You keep writing “influence an election” as if that is a crime.
If so why isn’t hillary in jail ?
Why hasn’t Biden been impeached – multiple times ?
Influencing an election is not a crime.
You can not string two or more legal acts together and convert them into a crime.
Hillaries production fo the Steele dossier is immoral. It is not a crime.
Making a false report to the FBI was a crime, but the Jury Let that go because the FBI already knew he allegations were a hoax.
That means that will the actions of Clinton and her minions were legal – those of the FBI in crossfire huricane were criminal.
Opening a criminal investigation based on allegations that you KNOW are a hoax is a crime. It is a violation of the civil rights of another under color of law.
Gigi, Weisselberg is not on trial. His notes are meaningless. Until the prosecution call Weisslberg to testify, making himself available for cross examination, the notes are not evidence for the charges being prosecuted.
Thats all constitutional stuff you lack the intellectual heft to grasp.
Weisselberg resides in Rikers Island right now, but his records are officially part of the Trump Organization and they contain his notes about “reimbursement” and “grossing up” the payment to Cohen to cover his tax liability. Weisselberg’s records are before the jury based on the testimony of the recordkeepers. Neither side is going to call Weisselberg to testify. And, yes, his notes ARE evidence and they are an admission against Trump’s itnerest. Who the hell are you to tell me I don’t understand “constitutional stuff”–you fall for the lies from MAGA media.
Get a life, loser.
Have you seen the pieces of work who show up at Trump rallies? How many of Trump’s supporters are homeless? Are you homeless? Asking for a friend.
I have.
They are Americans of every class and race.
Clearly you have no idea of which you witlessly comment on.
Lawrence Taylor was at the last one endorsing DJT among over 100,000 others. Perhaps you missed it.
Like everything else DJT.
You mean the pieces of work who know what sex they are, wearing normal clothes, sporting normal haircuts and normal hair colors instead of pink, blue or purple hair. People who don’t hide behind a mask for fear of being busted for their rioting and looting know there are only 50 states and don’t talk to the dead thinking they are at one of the rallies? Those pieces of work?
Do homeless people drive for hours to attend political rallies?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!.
Where is the crime, Perry Mason?
There is none. Your TDS is has driven you stark raving stupid.
Congrats!
LOLOLLLL!
That water is deep and cold in DeNile, huh Gigiles?
HAHAHAHAH!
There is no “Lynchpin of the case” because there IS NO CASE!
It’s a kangaroo court of TDS knaves and fools and you cheerlead this embarrassing farce of “justice”
Shame on you. You are an embarrassment to yourself. Creep away in humiliation if you have a shred of dignity left in your soul. But you won’t. You are a leftist,
“the prosecutor has already made a prima facie case for falsifying business records by misrepresenting a payoff to Daniels as attorney fees for the purpose of influencing the election.”
You are incorrect, but even if you were correct – there is no such crime.
Thje Crime Trump has been charged with is creating fraudulent business records to coverup a crime.
Trying to influence an election – YOUR WORDS is not a crime – it is the entire legitimate purpose of every political campaign that ever was.
Further falsifying business records – something that Bragg has still failed to provide evidence of,
is not the same as Fraud.
False means incorrect.
Fraud means intentionally deceiving someone you have a duty to provide the truth to, and causing them harm.
Bragg has not proved the records are incorrect.
He certainly not proved they were fraudulent.
[OT]:
Turley, why don’t you do a column or post here discussing “42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights ”
And how it could be used against the Universities and their staff.
We now return you back to the farce which is Michael Cohen.
Discourse in Turley’s no-rules “free speech” demolition-derby comment section has inevitably descended to the level of “I know you are, but what am I?”
How low will it go before an adult finally steps in and pulls the plug on this unhinged embarrassment?
I clearly won’t be you, child……
His “Demolition derby” of free speech has eleuded your demolition of this premise that Mikey Cohen is is a serial perjurerer in a full on Soviet kangaroo court designed SOLELY to illegally keep DJT off the ballot.
Why don’t you trained leftist monkeys make an argument about how Mikey Cohen and this court is compleely legitimate and what is clearly a kangaroo court isn’t actually a kangaroo coutrt?
The reason you fescists don’t do that is because you can’t. Because even you gosse-stepping nazis can’t defent this joke without looking like the half-wits you are. It’s laughable to us non TDS sane people.
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.
Amen
Clown
By this logic, 99% of Christians are going to hell.
Almost 70 comments and all the leftist trolls have is child like playground taunts.
Not a single one has used the law to explain what President is being charge with. An Accounting dispute. A CPA, informed by decades of Experience, Years of Collegiate Education, 100’s of hours of continuing educational training, determined an attorneys invoice for services, should be booked as legal expense. The govt is calling this accounting fraud. The Govt has not presented a witness that claims to be defrauded.
But again, the leftists trolls plaster the site with comments. Not a single one defends the governments case against President Trump
Sounds like no one, including you, has read the actual indictment.
I haven’t read it either. However, her is an analysis by a former federal prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/04/braggs-prosecution-of-trump-violates-new-york-states-constitution/
That is because there is no case against DJT with the slightest shred of legality.
It’s ALL a 3rd world kangaroo court. The left knows this.
All of this is a desperate leftist Hail Mary attempting to keep him from the 2024 ballot because he will win
if he’s on the ballot by an unstealable landslide.
The tratorous left doesn’t even bother to deny that obvious fact. They don’t care at all about the charade
because they are indeed traitors, and the rule of law is irrelevant to traitors.
The purpose of accounting codes is to group similar expenses into a small number of catagories so that business managers can track the performance of the business.
When someone wishes to know the exact nature of an expense – you pull the VENDORS invoice for that expense.
If a vendor wants to get paid it is their job to accurately describe what they expect to be paid for.
From the businesses perspective the objective for catagorization is to be fine grained enough to spot problems, and broad enough not to wast executives time.
This case is worse than fighting over whether a book is misfiled under the dewey decimal system and even less consequential.
The Trump organization is NOT a public company – it is privately held. There are actually NO accounting requirements it is obligated to follow. There is IRS guidance on this that allows businesses to use any accounting standards or none at all – so long as they correctly report taxes owed and whatever system they use does not intentionally misrepresent taxes owed.
Outside of taxes – where 99% of all expenses fall into one of three tax catagories – deductable, partly deductable and not deductable,
the accounting records are entirely internal.
Bragg might be able to argbue that Trump coded NDA’s a legal expenses to hide them from Melania.
But not from the IRS – these payments were tax deductable and were properly 1099’d.
The purpose of accounting codes is to group similar expenses into a small number of catagories so that business managers can track the performance of the business.
Yea, all the experts her opining about accounting procedures they have no clue about.
Monthly P/L’s are compared to last years and this years budget.
If legal expense is triple for the month of April, the CPA will find out why and footnote the report to his bosses. The CPA does not care. Not his job. If the anomaly needs adjusted, the CPA will get direction from his bosses.
Iowan2,
Well said.
I do enjoy watching John Say, Lin, JJC, Daniel, others and yourself with knowledge and experience in law and accounting smack down the trolls. They clearly are out of their depth when it comes to the law, as they just cut and paste the DNC and MSM talking points.
Well done!
At one time Michael Cohen was to be estimated to be worth $100 million in New York City Taxi Medallions,
however that may be less now since the advent of Uber and Lyft, but none the less at current value his holdings are worth millions.
The fact that he is involved in the ‘Legitimate’ business of NYC’s Taxi & Limousine Department as an agent should not preclude you from thinking the Cab Driver on the Street see this as a ‘racket’ for medallions. It’s a thin veil, Who controls the Streets – The Bosses (Medallion Agent/Brokers).
So one could say that, the shady dealings of this buiness is right up Michael Cohen’s ally. At his very best – a Barzini’ Caporegime (the term is borrowed from the Godfather Movie).
So it’s fair to say that the Government (FBI|DOJ ect.) has leverage over him and his wife. And Bragg is using it to push what they want outta Cohen,
forcing the testimony that fits the Agenda (sideline Trump, so Hillary or Nancy can swoop in Convention time and steal the Show away).
The Convention will be ‘magical’ alright, Presto-Changeo.
Michael Cohen and the absolutely amazing history of the once-coveted New York City taxi medallion
By: Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large ~ April 11, 2018
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/politics/michael-cohen-taxi-medallion-donald-trump/index.html
FBI raid targeted records of payments to porn star, ex-Playmate
Gloria Borger Pamela Brown Eli Watkins
By: Gloria Borger, Pamela Brown and Eli Watkins, CNN ~ April 10, 2018
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/politics/michael-cohen-search-warrant/index.html
What is a NYC taxi medallion worth today?
Since last year, the values of taxi medallions have inched upward for the first time in eight years. Based on sales data from the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), the average medallion value has climbed from its low point at $79,106 in May 2021 to $137,330 in May 2022.Aug 10, 2022
[Link] chauffeurdriven.com/news-features/in-this-issue/3408-in-depth-with-daus-rising-medallions-could-be-good-news-for-all-nyc-transportation.html
The EQUALIZER gets her NYC Medallion
Turley’s comment section has officially become a troll-infested, no rules sh*t show. Nice work, Professor.
Wherever you allow extremists, both left or right, it becomes a retarded cesspool.
Left vs. Right is an overly-simplistic shortcut used to avoid critical thinking by slapping tired old labels on people so as to encourage others not to pay attention to what they say, whether it’s incredibly stupid or well considered.
Neither Left nor Right matter in Turley’s junkyard comment section, which has arrived at its inevitable destination where intellectual vagrants and half-baked nimrods banned by other websites have gathered — some loitering all day every day — to spew their silly nonsense — WHY? — because they have nothing better to do.
And like clockwork, here you are, cluelessly confirming confirming your thesis.
WELL DONE!
HAHAHAHHA!
Where is the slightest shred of “Extremeism” here?
Cite just one example.
Much less any evidence of a “retarded cesspool”
Your comment excepted as retarded. You leftists are as predictable as sunrise in you lust
for shutting down debate. Not a single comment about Mikey The Perjurer, just the usual
ad hominem about anything but the Bragg Clown Show™
Tell us all about how Cohen and this prosecution is legitimate.
We eagerly await your in depth analysis, Clarence Darrow.
It’s a town square where you goose-stepping leftists can’t shut anyone up here.
No wonder you fascists try to mock it. You filthy nazis can’t stand a healthy dose of truth.
You totalitarians never can. Welcome to the jungle of free speeech, chimp.
Jefferson and Madison would LOVE this place. That’s why you don’t.
How is it his fault? He’s letting people be themselves.
Precedent For Charging Brotha “Fat Alvin” Bragg:
Mike Nifong
Michael Byron Nifong (born September 14, 1950) is an American former attorney and convicted criminal.[2] He served as the Durham County District Attorney until he was removed, disbarred, and very briefly jailed following court findings concerning his conduct in the Duke lacrosse case, primarily his conspiring with the DNA lab director to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence that could have acquitted the defendants.[3]
– Wiki
Ha ha ha ha ha… you’re unhinged from reality.
George is correct – Bragg, Willis, and “Jack Smith” are all on track to face charges for their highly illegal prosecutions of Trump.
Nope. Prosecutors have absolute immunity. Even Nifong couldn’t be charged or sued for knowingly prosecuting a false case. The only thing they got him on was conspiring with the DNA lab; had he not done that he would have got away scot free. Nobody has alleged that Bragg or Smith have done anything comparable to that.
Malicious prosecution and evidence tampering are accusations, with more to follow.
Bragg and James are in serious trouble. So is Jack Smith.
Evidence tampering is a crime, and if someone can prove Smith did so he can be prosecuted for it. But malicious prosecution is a tort, and prosecutors have absolute immunity from all torts. Malicious prosecution suits can only be brought against policemen, not against prosecutors.
Cannon is deliberately laying out the crimes in her proceeding, so that is where eventual charges against Smith will first appear.
These illegitimate cases against Trump will result in revocation of prosecutorial immunity, along with the pending SCOTUS case.
Prosecutors and judges have been given/claimed far too much unchecked power without oversight.
Prosecutors do not have full immunity against unlimited misconduct. That is false.
Additionally, judges may face civil rights cases when rights of defendants are egregiously violated.
There are several of these cases about to be filed in PA.
Not for long they don’t.
Everybody associated with Trump is a criminal.
That statement is neither factual, has any truth to it, is obviously biased and therefore is a total misstatement sought to taint the facts with a false rebuttal. No wonder you are anonymous, because it could be a planted statement meat to convict for a crime that never was. Influencing a verdict by submission of a false statement, and even worse if it was given UNDER OATH.
Who cares what you think, Clowncar.
^ Troll alert ^
You badly misspelled Biden, Clinton, and Obama in that witless post.
As I understand it there’s no evidence that Trump even paid Stormy Daniels. And yet Bragg has pressed ahead with this charade anyway. Which leads me to believe y’all don’t get it – what Bragg wants is a guilty verdict and whether these are “trump-ed up” charges (a phrase Trump himself has been hesitant to use) or even a total “non-crime” makes no difference. Trump is the consummate politician, a rare blend of political intellect, intelligence and competency; he is winning, and therefore guilty of something, because today’s Democrat neither possesses nor recognizes, nor is willing to admit, any moral compass. Trump is winning, he is therefore “playing dirty,” and so must we! Guilty as charged! (Of what we don’t know.) And the future of American politics, and the America it has guarded for the last 250 years, be damned!
“As I understand it…” You don’t because you’re a moron.
^ Troll ^
^ Troll ^
^ Troll ^
Stephanie (Stormy) Gregoey Clifford (Daniels) has a notarized signed document denying she ever had any relationship
with DJT and explicitly says it never happened.
Case closed if we aren’t a banana republic…(We all know we are one because the fake case keeps going on)
And she has repeated stated that that denial was false and coerced. And she has now testified under oath that it did happen. So the statement is of almost no evidentiary value. At most a jury may take it into account and say it creates reasonable doubt — but it is also completely open to a jury to ignore it altogether, or even to regard it as evidence that Trump suborned perjury.
Your post accurately highlights Trump’s REAL crime – He is winning.
Trump is a crook because he defeated Hillary in 2016 – and that should not have been possible.
Trump is a crook because he is near certain to defeat Biden in 2024 – and that should not be possible.
Those on the left should take advice from Casius in Julius Ceasar – “the Fault is not in our stars (or our enemies), but in ourselves.”
Clinton lost, and Biden is losing, fo rmany reasons, but high among them because the modern democratic party has governed badly.
One of the few things that I beleive that Bragg has successfully proved is that the payments to Micheal Cohen were reimbursement for the Daniels NDA taxes, and some other fees to Cohen
Trump did not pay Daniels. Cohen did. But Trump did eventually reimburse Cohen for work, taxes and profits that included securing the Daniels NDA.
That does not get Bragg within 1000 miles of establishing any crime.
This is common with the left, which is why though I often attack factual claims that are false.
I Frequently assume for the sake of argument that much if not all the facts are as those on the left claim – even though that is absurdly false and directly confront their core argument.
The facts as ALLEGED by Bragg, do not constitute a crime. That is why this case should never have gone to court.
The Judge early on should have granted the equivalent of summary judgement saying that even if you prove everything you claim you are going to prove – you have no actual crime.
While I will be happy to highlight the absurdly stupid antifactual claims of those on the left, it is still inevitable that Bragg will porove somethings, or that he will persuade people of somethings.
I think the majority of americans beleive Trump had sex with Daniels.
That is irrelevant – it does not matter. It is not a crime and paying for daniels silence is not a crime.
But my weighing of the facts provided is that Trump did not have sex with Daniels, for many reasons but among those
Daniels recalls alot about what she can reasonably anticipate that she was going to be asked.
And NOTHING about the things she did not expect to be asked – like where was her own hotel room and how did she get to Trump’s.
More important is that the payment to Daniels of $130K is proportionate to the payment of $30K to the doorman for the absurdly false Trump had a love child with a made story. If Trump would pay $30K for a ludicrously stupid 3rd party false story, it is easy to beleive he would pay $130K for a first party story by someone who did actually meet him at a Golf Event.
At the same time – if the Story was True – at the very least Clinton would have paid a million for it – and Stormy is not stupid.
It is always less dangerous to sell a false story to the person it was about – both you and they KNOW it is false, so there is no fraud involved.
If you sell a false story to someone else representing it as True – you are engaged in Fraud and that is a crime.