Below is my column in Fox.com on the approaching end of the Trump trial in Manhattan. With the dramatic implosion of Michael Cohen on the stand on Thursday with the exposure of another alleged lie told under oath, even hosts and commentators on CNN are now criticizing the prosecution and doubting the basis for any conviction. CNN anchor Anderson Cooper admitted that he would “absolutely” have doubts after Cohen’s testimony. CNN’s legal analyst Elie Honig declared “I don’t think I’ve ever seen a star cooperating witness get his knees chopped out quite as clearly and dramatically.” He previously stated that this case would never have been brought outside of a deep blue, anti-Trump district. Other legal experts, including on CNN and MSNBC, admitted that they did not get the legal theory of the prosecution or understand the still mysterious crime that was being concealed by the alleged book-keeping errors. The question is whether the jury itself is realizing that they are being played by the prosecution.
Here is the column:
In the movie “Quiz Show,” about the rigging of a 1950s television game show, the character Mark Van Doren warns his corrupted son that “if you look around the table and you can’t tell who the sucker is, it’s you.”
As the trial of former President Donald Trump careens toward its conclusion, one has to wonder if the jurors are wondering the same question.
For any discerning juror, the trial has been conspicuously lacking any clear statement from the prosecutors of what crime Trump was attempting to commit by allegedly mischaracterizing payments as “legal expenses.” Even liberal legal experts have continued to express doubt over what crime is being alleged as the government rests its case.
There is also the failure of the prosecutors to establish that Trump even knew of how payments were denoted or that these denotations were actually fraudulent in denoting payments to a lawyer as legal expenses.
The judge has allowed this dangerously undefined case to proceed without demanding greater clarity from the prosecution.
Jurors may also suspect that there is more to meet the eye about the players themselves. While the jurors are likely unaware of these facts, everyone “around the table” has controversial connections. Indeed, for many, the judge, prosecutors, and witnesses seem as random or coincidental as the cast from “Ocean’s Eleven.” Let’s look at three key things.
1. The Prosecutors
First, there are the prosecutors. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg originally (as did his predecessor) rejected this ridiculous legal theory and further stated that he could not imagine ever bringing a case where he would call former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen, let alone make him the entirety of a prosecution.
Bragg’s suspension of the case led prosecutor Mark F. Pomerantz to resign. Pomerantz then wrote a book on the prosecution despite his colleagues objecting that he was undermining their work. Many of us viewed the book as unethical and unprofessional, but it worked. The pressure campaign forced Bragg to green-light the prosecution.
Pomerantz also met with Cohen in pushing the case.
Bragg then selected Matthew Colangelo to lead the case. Colangelo was third in command of the Justice Department and gave up that plum position to lead the case against Trump. Colangelo was also paid by the Democratic National Committee for “political consulting.” So a former high-ranking official in the Biden Justice Department and a past consultant to the DNC is leading the prosecution.
2. The Judge
Judge Juan Merchan has been criticized not only because he is a political donor to President Biden but his daughter is a high-ranking Democratic political operative who has raised millions in campaigns against Trump and the GOP. Merchan, however, was not randomly selected. He was specifically selected for the case due to his handling of an earlier Trump-related case.
3. The Star Witness
Michael Cohen’s checkered history as a convicted, disbarred serial perjurer is well known. Now, Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., is under fire after disclosing that “I have met with [Cohen] a number of times to prepare him.”
Goldman in turn paid Merchan’s daughter, Loren Merchan, more than $157,000 dollars for political consulting.
Outside the courtroom, there is little effort to avoid or hide such conflicts. While Democrats would be outraged if the situation were flipped in a prosecution of Biden, the cross-pollination between the DOJ, DNC, and Democratic operatives is dismissed as irrelevant by many in the media.
Moreover, there is little outrage in New York that, in a presidential campaign where the weaponization of the legal system is a major issue, Trump is not allowed to discuss Cohen, Colangelo, or these conflicts. A New York Supreme Court judge is literally controlling what Trump can say in a presidential campaign about the alleged lawfare being waged against him.
The most striking aspect of these controversial associations is how little was done to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interests. There were many judges available who were not donors or have children with such prominent political interests in the case. Bragg could have selected someone who was not imported by the Biden administration or someone who had not been paid by the DNC.
There was no concern over the obvious appearance of a politically motivated and stacked criminal case. Whether or not these figures are conflicted or compromised, no effort was taken to assure citizens that any such controversies are avoided in the selection of the key players in this case.
What will be interesting is how the jury will react when, after casting its verdict, the members learn of these undisclosed associations. This entire production was constructed for their benefit to get them to convict Trump despite the absence of a clear crime or direct evidence.
They were the marks and, like any good grift, the prosecutors were hoping that their desire for a Trump conviction would blind them to the con.
Bragg, Colangelo and others may be wrong. Putting aside the chance that Judge Merchan could summon up the courage to end this case before it goes to the jury, the grift may have been a bit too obvious.
New Yorkers are a curious breed. Yes, they overwhelmingly hate Trump, but they also universally hate being treated like chumps. When they get this case, they just might look around the courtroom and decide that they are the suckers in a crooked game.
This case is cooked. End of story. Cohen admitted under oath that his call to Trump about paying off Stormy Daniels was entirely false and his phone call was actually to Keith Schiller about some harassing prank calls Cohen got from some dumb 14 year old kid.
Trump gave no direction to Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels
Cohen never told Trump “I’m gonna pay off Stormy Daniels for you, pay me back later,”
It’s far more likely at this point that Trump paid Cohen the $130K believing the invoice to be for legal services rendered and/or standard retainer fee.
Game over.
Just in, he also admitted to stealing $30K from the Trump organization. Next hearings will be for the judge and DEI Da Bragg.
Canadian ex-attorney David Freiheit (Viva Frei) summarizes Cohen’s disastrous testimony
https://rumble.com/v4vo7j2-disaster-michael-cohen-trump-testimony-is-a-debacle-time-for-a-narrative-sh.html
“LAWFARE: Do you know how many Republican lawyers and activists are under attack by Democrat prosecutors and lawyers? Over 400. They’re facing indictments, civil suits, and disbarment in an effort to keep them from ensuring election integrity in November”. @amuse
Precisely why a significant portion of the DNC and affiliates will have to be jailed.
“all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.” CLINTOM
Gigi excuses this filthy liar. To her, Clinton is wonderful, and Trump is terrible for making a dirty comment. Clinton is responsible for genocide. GET THIS: Bill Clinton, as President of the United States. aided and abetted the holocaust of one million innocent people. For approving of his behavior, Gigi is an evil, lying, deceptive enemy of humanity.
The most evil American, Billy Blythe III, son of a used car salesman, aka Slick, knew exactly how, why, when and where tens of thousands were cut to pieces every hour on his watch and he Refused to lift a finger. And Gigi hates Trump
As genocide raged, general’s pleas for help ignored
In 1994, Romeo Dallaire was leading a U.N. peacekeeping force in Rwanda
The Canadian lieutenant general warned his bosses that a slaughter was imminent
Instead of sending reinforcements, the U.N. eventually ordered Dallaire to withdraw
He refused what he calls an “immoral” order and ultimately left Africa a broken man
CNN
“And you shake your head and say it’s a shame” Tull
Oh, CNN! Most respected name in journalism in the world! It’s like they’ve never hidden any part of a story – or told a story that was the complete opposite of what they claimed.
CNN forgot to mention that Romeo Dallaire abandoned a platoon of Belgian paratroopers under his command he saw being held by the genocidal butchers to be hacked to death – claiming there was nothing he could do. Couldn’t stop long enough to demand they release those Belgian paras.
Nothing he could do despite being personally armed with infantry weapons while they had nothing but machetes, and with similarly armed UN troops from both Canada and other nations at his command.
Nothing he could do despite other UN contingent leaders ignoring both their bosses at home and UN demands from afar to do the right thing. That would include not only another Canadian general ignoring a demand to step down in Sarajevo and instead ordering his troops to engage and eliminate “snipers” killing unarmed women and children coming out in the open to merely get water. Or if you prefer, the Indian general who did issentially the same thing. Or the British contingent commander in Afghanistan that did the same thing under the UN’s ISAF fighting of the war in Afghanistan.
So… ultimately leading to Dallaire and his cowardice being held in unanimous contempt by the troops and others at his home in Canada. And in Belgium where they wanted him handed over for criminal prosecution. Yeah, CNN forgot to mention any of that as well.
Some claim his publicized claim he attempted suicide was due to what he saw. Many others believe that a small shred of what he had left as a military man told him the only way to deal with his shame at the cowardice that abandoned those Belgian paras and the civilians who were slaughtered was suicide.
No surprise that Dallaire re-invented himself to be one of Justin Trudeau’s cabinet ministers later. Perfect fit…
Jethro Tull got any lines to describe the reality of the full story of what happened with Dallaire?
O Father high in heaven
Smile down upon your son
Whose busy with his money games
His women and his gun
You missed the point. Bill Clinton turned his back on Rwanda, lied, and inspired the slaughter of one million innocent people. He apologized for not doing more sooner. He did nothing, ever. And America buys slick’s lies for a hundred million bucks. Trump, not so much.
Steal a little and they throw you in jail. Steal a lot and they make you King.
Turley writes wrt Judge Juan Merchan: “Bragg could have selected someone who was not imported by the Biden administration or someone who had not been paid by the DNC.” How are either of these claims true?
I agree with him that this case is pure “get Trump at any cost” nonsense with zero legal foundation, but It’s unsupported throwaway lines like this that make Turley look simply foolish.
That notwithstanding, and contrary to Turley’s seeming bewilderment regarding the prosecutor’s lack of a reasonably legal-literate case or the judges inexplicable behavior, it is my own belief that none of this is bewildering. Neither the prosecution nor the judge care in the least about the outcome of the case. Guilty of not guilty doesn’t matter to them. What does matter, and what has always mattered, is the process; an all-out effort to achieve Trump’s maximum public embarrassment — through legal buffoonery, innuendo and outright lies — during an election year. To that end, they’ve achieved their aim. It has been the rankest display of legal/political cynicism in several generations. And I’m of the opinion that Trump is a bloated egomaniac who aught to retire and permanently go fishing.
And it is the American thing we must do to try Bill Clinton for crimes against humanity as he refused to ask the UN for Peacekeeprs as the Rwandan Holocaust wiped out one million innocent, unarmed Rwandans. The Democrats turned their backs on our nation when they failed to prosecure this disgusting Hitleresque monster
It seems you’ve misunderstood what Turley wrote. He didn’t write that in regards to the judge. They were two separate thoughts. He addressed the judge, period, and then addressed a decision the DA didn’t have to make. The two statements weren’t related outside both being decisions that were made that weren’t necessary.
Nice mental gymnastics Mike. You are indeed “agile” with your reading comprehension.
The full paragraph:
“The most striking aspect of these controversial associations is how little was done to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interests. There were many judges available who were not donors or have children with such prominent political interests in the case. Bragg could have selected someone who was not imported by the Biden administration or someone who had not been paid by the DNC.”
That statement refers to Colangelo, not Merchan.
You would have to be a bloated, cut like a marshmallow Never Trump Even If It Means Obama’s Fourth Term to claim that’s an “unsupported throwaway line”.
You’d have to pretend that Bragg’s choice of lead prosecutor didn’t open a channel straight to Biden’s DoJ where that prosecutor came from to help them create and support this legal fiction against Trump.
You’d have to pretend that a case brought on behalf of “the people” – not just on behalf of Democrats looks – supposedly looks equally just in the eyes of Republicans who know his choice of prosecutor was a Soviet Democrat election operative as well as the author of a book outlining the kinds of “innovative” legal chicanery to get Trump was a fair prosecutor.
Even though the hiding of exculpatory evidence from the Grand Jury phase onward showed that chosen Biden prosecutor to be nothing more than another political hitman straight from the mould Jack Smith came from.
And I’m of the opinion that somebody’s personal mangina injuries regarding Trump leads them to claim he’s too incompetent to do anything other than go fishing while Biden is not yet ready for retirement and should give us Obama’s Fourth Term before permanently checking into an ice cream shop to sniff kiddies’ hair are much closer to what an egomaniac with opinions they built in the clouds in the sky looks like.
I guess Bragg will identify the crime during closing arguments.
LOL, sure.
Decades ago it became clear the legal “profession” (read that as criminal con artists) had decided the jury of your peers was not to be trusted, their minds being so pliable and weak, all entry into them must be controlled from the top down.
They then instituted their MKUltra mind programming on the juries of the USA.
Sequester. Do not read about the case. No TV. No discussing the case. No information.
You will be a VEGETABLE FOR THE COURT.
This is the legal system. A crock, a sham, a huge lie.
Now I have it.
Thanks to John Say, and his explanations of the law it comes into focus what Coangelo (an I am sure a lot of help from the lawfare PAC) did, is intentionally use an ambiguous term(business record) to fool the rubes and give a fig leaf to those in on the scam. Like the Judge.
This case was never going withstand appeal.
It did however require a crooked Judge to aide and abet this scam, long enough to get a conviction, in the second most Democrat County in the nation. An appeal was always going to overturn this. Exactly like the two Civil findings will be overturned, but not until after the vote.
The same way lying about the Hunter laptop was always going to be exposed, but not until after the election.
Very simply.
The misdemeanor charge pertains ONLY TO RECORDS, REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK
ATS has even admitted the” crime” is ‘booking’ the expense in the ledgers. ONLY true if those ledgers are required by law. Personal records are just that, PERSONAL. They can be as detailed or broad as the owner of the personal records wants. Or the don’t need to exist.
The only thing you need is proof of anything that you use to adjust your tax liability. But ledgers exist ONLY to aide you in tracking the expenses, so you dont have to recreate records, to find the documents. As John Say has mentioned, banking record today are doing a big chunk of that work. I have a DBA,. With simple program and half a dozen categories, expense and income tracking is simple. But there is no legal requirement I keep any record. And if I want I can call oil changes, meals and entertaining, The only crime would be when if use that to adjust my tax liability
Now it easy to see scam
Easier to Mercahn’s corruption
This is ATS comment from yesterday
It doesn’t matter what account was used.
If he paid with a personal check, why didn’t he just leave it at that. No crime would be committed in that case.
No crime. I was CPA for DECADES. Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and confidentiality agreements are both legal contracts between two or more parties that specify the criteria for maintaining the confidentiality of certain information. The accounting for NDAs is fairly straightforward — you write it off in the current period or you capitalize it and amortize it. Since this wasn’t a tax accounting issue, there was no legal guidance to the proper treatment. If it was a tax issue, then we’d call it a Section 197 intangible (…any patent, copyright, formula, process, design, pattern, knowhow, format, or other similar item,) and amortize over the allowable period as a CAPITALIZED LEGAL EXPENSE if were CONSERVATIVE about interpretation. But it’s nor really any of those items so we could write it off in good faith unless our in-depth research indicated otherwise.
It’s always helpful to some understanding of what you’re talking about before you pop-off.
But he didn’t identify the payments as payment for an NDA. He tried to hide the nature of the payments by identifying them as payment for legal services. Cohen has testified that he did not provide any legal services. That is the crime.
Incidentally, Cohen was an employee at the time. How can you be an employee and provide legal services at the same time as a 1099 contractor.
This whole operation was an illegal conspiracy from the start.
No. Assumes facts not in evidence.
There was no “hiding” of anything demonstrated at trial.
Try again.
When asked about the invoices, Cohen testified that they were false, and that NO LEGAL SERVICES were provided.
Well. you will undoubtedly reply that he is lying. That may be true. All Trump has to do is take the stand and testify, under oath, that Cohen is lying, and let the jury decide who is telling the truth.
Until Trump testifies otherwise, Cohen’s testimony stands.
That is ONE way to prove that. another is to look at all the testimony that has occured – including Cohen’s.
The work Cohen did was LEGAL SERVICES.
Trump did not write the NDA, he did not even sign the NDA, the evidence is pretty clear he did not KNOW about the NDA until after the election.
He appears to have known that Cohen was tasked with killing off unflattering stories – though even that is NOT established by the evidence.
The HOW was Cohen’s job.
I would note that pretty much every witness that participated in the Daniels and McDougal issues has TESTIFIED that what was being done was Contract negotiation – aka LEGAL SERVICES.
Trump does not need to testify that the sun rose yeaterday – that is always an established fact.
This was just a stupid silly lie by Cohen. Sounds like some idiot Idea that Rep. Goldman came up with.
“Deny that legal services are legal services”
Those of you on the left – are incapable of critical thinking. Your arguments are shallow and at odds with reality.
You think that you can just SAY something and that changes reality.
What Cohen did is “Legal services” – because that is the name for the work that he did that many people including Cohen have testified that he did.
Cohen saying he did not perform any legal services is just a “silly lie” – it is pretending that the jury is stupid and will ignore the FACTs.
If Cohen is testifying, he’s lying.
When asked about the invoices, Cohen testified that they were false, and that NO LEGAL SERVICES were provided.
Trump paid an invoice from Cohen. If Cohen says he sent a phony invoice, it has no relevance to the case.
Another cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrat police state fascist tried this un-American line:
When asked about the invoices, Cohen testified that they were false, and that NO LEGAL SERVICES were provided. Well. you will undoubtedly reply that he is lying. That may be true. All Trump has to do is take the stand and testify, under oath, that Cohen is lying, and let the jury decide who is telling the truth.
Unlike the Soviet Union and Communist China that the Soviet Democrats identify with, in the United States defendants are not required to testify in their defense. It is the job of the prosecutor to establish the credibility of their witnesses, included a felon admitting to convictions for perjury and confessing he also stole from Trump and was not indicted by Bragg in exchange for giving testimony he was coached on what to say.
And it is the job of the judge to allow the defense to provide witnesses that rebutt the claims made by the prosecutions witnesses like Cohen. Like his former attorney who would have stated that Cohen repeatedly told him while trying to escape prosecution that “I swear to God, I don’t have any criminal evidence to give them about Trump”.
But this judge chose to prohibit the defense from allowing Cohen’s former defense lawyer telling the jury that – leaving them with Cohen’s claims being unchallenged.
That’s the kind of trail and jury decision you cowardly Anonymous police state fascist Soviet Democrats are demanding.
And this is why you’re so feckless and cowardly that you only post under the username ‘Anonymous’.
“But he didn’t identify the payments as payment for an NDA.”
He is not required to.
I would further note that Trump did NOT pay for the NDA – he payed to have the story burried.
Cohen picked HOW to do it.
Trump did not contract with Daniels. An NDA is a contract, and a contract is an asset – someone OWNS it.
Cohen OWNED the Clifford NDA – Trump did not.
Trump bought the SERVICE of killing the story. Not the NDA.
So your argument has two problems – it is legally incorrect that Trump was required to identify money paid to Cohen in any specific way.
And factually incorrect that trump bough an NDA. Trump bought a legal service – quashing the story.
“He tried to hide the nature of the payments by identifying them as payment for legal services. ”
That is both false and irrelevant.
There is absolutely no requirement that you keep your financial records to suit third parties.
It is also false – because these are NOT public records – they are by there very nature HIDDEN.
You are arguing that Trump lied in his diary to himself because MAYBE someone would later subpeona his diary.
The nature of the payments is legal expenses.
They have also been catagorized as reimbursements – that too is correct,
There are many ways to catagorize an expense.
If you buy a hamburger at McD’s – you could call it a hamburger, you could call it food, you could call it travel expense if you were away from home.
In a business accountin system it would likely be reported as travel or as unreimburseable office expenses.
No accounting system has a catagory for Hamburgers – and I doubt there is one with a catagory for NDA’s.
“Cohen has testified that he did not provide any legal services.”
And that would be false. Even by your own argument – that Cohen got an NDA from Daniels – that is still a legal service.
If a lawyer writes up and negotiates a contract for me – that is a legal service. An NDA is a contract.
But this is further complicated by the FACT that the NDA is between Cohen and Clifford – Trump is not a party.
Trump MAY benefit from the NDA – that is a SERVICE, but he does not OWN the NDA – Cohen does.
If Clifford violated the NDA – she would owe Cohen – not Trump $1M.
An NDA is an asset (contracts generally are assets).
“That is the crime.”
No it is not. First the very law being cited does not make that a crime, second because if it did that would violate common law, due process, the constituion and the social contract.
The corralary to “ignorance of the law is no exceuse” is that nearly all crimes require Criminal intent – that does NOT mean they were done intentionally, and that does NOT mean they were done with a motive. It means that those who did them KNEW they were Wrong. Laws that criminalize acts that are not OBVIOUSLY wrong – are not valid laws. Otherwise people would have to read every single legal statue to know what they can not do.
The reason that ignorance of the law is not an excuse – is because laws are constrained to prohibiting conduct that we all KNOW is harmful.
“Incidentally, Cohen was an employee at the time. How can you be an employee and provide legal services at the same time as a 1099 contractor.”
Trivialy – I do it all the time.
People who have never worked in any other way than as an employee have very distorted ideas about how things actually work.
First – though technically every W2 employer buys your time – almost no employer in the world looks at it that way.
What they are Buying is what you produce for them – which they go on to resell.
This is very important – because the REALITY is that employee is an artificial construct.
Each of us is Selling and Buying at the same time. We are selling what we produce and buying what we need.
That is a very important concept.
If you EVER wish to become successful you need to get past selling your time, and start thinking about the VALUE you are selling.
You make more by selling more VALUE.
Regardless, I have been W2’s and 1099’d by the same client. it is not Common – MOST of my work – and MOST legal work is B2B.
“This whole operation was an illegal conspiracy from the start.”
The reason that so many people keep asking “where is the crime”.
Is because you are obviously WRONG.
If as you claim Trump’s actions here were a crime – then where is the line ?
Biden paid campaign workers to kill social media stories about the Hunter Biden laptop – that is no different.
Not a wit different. When Biden loses in 2024 – should some prosecutor go after him for “an illegal conspiracy” ?
Bill Clinton’s war Room had the purpose of killing all the “bimbo eruptions.
They got NDA’s, they threatened Defamation suits, they slandered people who came forward, they got the press to bury stories.
This was a far broader “conspiracy” than Trump engaged in – but it was NOT a crime, just as Trump’s actions were NOT a crime.
I would note almost none of the testimony so far has tied this to the election.
If a business or person that gets an NDA that has not for an election – obligated to write NDA payment on the invoces, checksm and code it that way in the accounting system (there is no such accounting code) ?
When you start this nonsense trying to broadly criminalize things – you end up catching lots of OBVIOUSLY non-criminal conduct in your net.
@ John Say
Classic example of pressure of thought and pressure of speech.
Google it.
Why ?
Are you unable to make arguments of your own ?
Have I put a gun to your head ? If not then fut the nonsense 1984 Newspeak.
Presumably you are capable of thinking for yourself.
Google is their to help you find facts.
Not to be ever more creative in your ad hominem.
If the FACTS and Logic that someone argues are correct then their argument is correct,
It does not matter whether they make in in ALL CAPS, shout it through a bullhorn, whisper it in the closet.
It does not matter if they are a Nazi or a communist.
What factual assertion have I made that is incorrect ?
The rules of logic are well established – what rules of logic have I violated ?
What fallacies have I used ?
ATS you are free to impose whatever moral judgement you wish on Trump’s conduct.
You are free to vote for whoever you wish.
As a candidate or campaign you are free to attack your opponent however you wish – including lying and smearing them.
I think that is a dangerous strategy. When you earn a reputation as a liar – people no longer trust you.
If as an example you say someone is working with the Russians – and it turns out that it is you that is working with the russians – then most people don’t beleive you about anything in the future.
But you are still free to lie like a rug if you wish.
Clinton’s conduct during his campaign in dealing with allegations of sexual impropriety was repugnant. It was immoral.
But it was also legal. That left it up to voters to decide. I beleive they decided wrongly, regardless they decided.
With respect to the Trump/McDougal/Daniels stories – I have no idea if they are true. Trump was a playboy, there is little doubt that he cheated on his wives. But that does not mean that every claim that Trump cheated is true.
In the end – except to Melania it does not matter. If you are a voter the daniels story should change nothing. If the Daniels and McDougal stories are false – somewhere out there is one that is true. Even Trump would not deny that.
All of us are free to weigh Trump morally as we choose who to vote for.
Personally between Trump and Clinton – Trump is clearly the lessor evil.
Between Trump and Biden – Trump is clearly the lessor evil.
But I did not vote for any of them. I voted for Garry Johnson in 2016 and Jo Jo Johnson in 2020.
All that said. Bill Clinton did not violate the law with his multifaceted war room efforts to kill Bimbo Eruption stories.
Though he did defame people and should have been held accountable.
Hillary did not violate the law with the Collusion Delusion – atleast not until she tries to shill it to the FBI as a crime.
False reports of a crime are a crime.
Joe Biden did not violate the law when his campaign tried to kill the Hunter Biden stories in 2020.
None of the above is moral. All of the above is legal.
But the Use of government to kill the Hunter Biden story in 2020 as well as to kill stories today is ILLEGAL adn IMMORAL.
Weaponizing government to go after anyone – much less a political opponent over non-crimes is ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL and IMMORAL.
“But he didn’t identify the payments as payment for an NDA. He tried to hide the nature of the payments by identifying them as payment for legal services.”
That is just bizarre.
As is this: “Cohen has testified that he did not provide any legal services.”
An NDA is a type of contract — a legal document. Cohen was Trump’s attorney, providing “legal services” for the execution of a legal document.
But he didn’t identify the payments as payment for an NDA. He tried to hide the nature of the payments
Bragg is lying, you bought into the lie. (its called confirmation bias https://www.britannica.com/science/confirmation-bias)
There is no law, regulating how you fill out your check register.
The law Bragg is missusing ONLY APPLIES to “records” required by the State of New York
We really Need a better class of trollbot, lol!
These are all unoriginal and not funny.
NOPE, you’re gullible/stupid for believing the laftards’ LIES!
Nice try, now try again, LOMFL!
Thank you.
you are correct
This particular transaction is further complicated by the FACT that the NDA was between Cohen and Clifford.
Trump was NOT a party to it.
It was therefore an ASSET owned by Cohen – Not Trump.
Because the NDA was owned by Cohen – Not Trump.
Trump bought a pure service – and therefore an non-capital expense.
Trump paid for Cohen’s services in burying unflattering stories.
There is no testimony that he specified how that was to be done.
He could have had AMI buy the story.
Cohen could pay for an NDA.
Cohen could threaten Daniels with a defamation lawsuit
He could have persuaded Journalists they would be sued if they ran the story.
Cohen is creative – there are other ways this could have been done.
Further as a matter of law when you buy something and you do NOT dictate how it is to be accomplished
you have no legal responsibility for how it was accomplished.
If as an example Cohen murdered Daniels – Trump would not be responsible – unless he either agreed to illegal means, or was sufficiently reckless in his communications with Cohen that Coehn could reasonably assume that criminal acts were approved.
As a very broad rule in business, if you do not tell someone HOW to do something, you are not responsible for HOW they do that.
There are some Quirks – because Employers are always responsible for their employees actions – though not usually criminally responsible.
But contractors and consultants are NOT employees.
Separately – assuming Bragg was correct – the purpose of this was to bury the story to get elected – as opposed to protecting the Trump brand or preventing Melania from going after Trump’s privates with a machette.
Winning the election is a one time thing – that makes it an EXPENSE not an ASSET and you would not capitalize it.
Assets are things that have value over years time. Expenses are things that lose most of their value over less than a year.
179
Bingo, well distilled.
This is criminal abuse of the legal system, akin to perversion of course of justice in the UK. Merchan must be prosecuted along with Bragg when this proceeding is concluded.
Thank you.
You actually read and understood what I posted.
I am going to TRY to say this concisely.
Neither the IRS nor states REQUIRE you to have any records at all. They do not REQUIRE you to manage you finances in any specific way.
You are Required to pay the taxes you owe. IF and ONLY If you owe Taxes you are REQUIRED to file a tax return – in the case of the Federal government a 1040 and any REQUIRED supporting forms – these are Government provided forms.
You USE your records – whatever records you might have – to fill out those tax returns.
There ARE other forms that you may be REQUIRED by law to fill out – 1099’s Quarterly payroll reports for Businesses.
AGAIN you USE YOUR records or whatever other information you might have to correctly file those reports.
You can not deliberately misrepresent things on those forms. Typically that is determined by – does the way you have altered your reporting improperly diminish your tax liability.
If you deliberately misreport something on a Government form that causes you to pay MORE taxes – you will never be prosecuted.
I would note that the government – particularly taxing authorities CAN come in and review YOUR records. Particularly actual business records. But they review them for the purpose of determining if you lied on your tax returns or other records actually required by government. Your records become the evidence you LIED on your tax returns.
But ultimately these are YOUR records and they are private. They are constructed by you for you.
While a MAJOR use of those records is to help YOU properly pay your taxes,
That is only ONE purpose.
The primary purpose is to help YOU manage your business.
If you want to lie to yourself about your own business – that is stupid but not illegal.
To be clear there are many many records that Government requires you to file with government – 18 US 1001 – the statute used to prosecute people for lying to the FBI came about in the 19th century because people could lie on the forms they submitted to government without consequence. The original purpose to 18 U 1001 was – if you submit phony records to government you can go to jail.
This is still the records you submit to government.
There is no legal requirement that you have any business or personal accounting system. I forget which one, but atleast one IRS form explicitly says that.
Financial records – business of personal Exist FOR YOU. The over whelming number of americans have no accounting system.
But nearly all businesses and high wealth individuals DO. Regardless it is a choice and those records are FOR YOU.
Every business I know of REQUIRES invoices from vendors or they will not pay – Trump’s accountants test ified to exactly that.
But an invoice is the record of the person seeking payment. If Micheal Cohen’s invoices are fraudulent – all liability is on COHEN.
Further there is an actual duty – not to Government, but to whoever you seek payment from to be truthful in your invoices.
An invoice that LIES is actual fraud – not Fraud to government, but fraud to the payor. It is a lie, you have a duty and there is actual harm.
I would note that an invoice does NOT have to be DETAILED.
My invoices often say nothing more than “dd/mm Software Development Services $####”
Or “JW Marriot Central Park PCA $####”
Which brings me to the 2ND Bid Point that this case is trying to hide.
The type of business records being dealt with in this case do NOT exist to describe in great detail what they were for.
That is done in other business records. Time records, contracts, payment agreements.
The purpose of accounting systems is to Group/catagorize large numbers of transactions into smaller groups.
The CEO of GM does not wish to review a 50,000 page financial report of every expense this month.
He wants a 2-3 page report that groups and sumarizes potentially tens of thousands of transactiosn into at most 200 catagories.
The entirety of Braggs case is that Trump or Cohen should have wrote “Hush money payment” rather than “legal expense” or “reimbursement” or “retainer” because “hush money payment is the perfectly precisely truthful description”
Ignoring that “hush money payment” is not even the proper description. the FACT is that each of these terms Bragg is fixating on are CATAGORIZATIONS – not detailed descriptions.
If My clients want details – they can call me up and ask for journals of my time and what I did each day (for T&M contracts).
If they asked for Details on a Fixed fee contract – my answer will be – READ THE CONTRACT. You agree to $X for Service Y.
Mc Donalds does not itemize the cost of the ingredients in your big max – atleast not to the customer.
The purpose of ALL accounting systems is NOT to record details. The core records document that.
The NDA between Daniels and Cohen in detail describes that agreement. Cohen was not obligated to detail the agreement in his invoice.
The information on an invoice, on a check or in an accounting system is always SUMMARY and/or CATAGORY information.
There is ALWAYS something more fundimental that provides all the details.
At MOST – based on the policies and procedures of the respective businesses there may be requirements for invoices and checks to allow the business to trace backwards to the more fundamental documents. as an example for T&M work I provide the month and year so that if the clients wants time records I can get the correct ones. On a PCA bill I provide the name of the project – that would allow them to find the contract for the project and the report on that project that is what they paid for.
I am NOT required by law to do any of that. I am not required by law to create an invoice. My clients are not by law required to write a check.
They are required to pay me for work contracted and if I expect to be paid – I have to ask for payment somehow and in one form or another prove I have done the work. I write invoices and I provide information on those invoices – because my clients require it.
I write checks and put information on those checks – because I require it.
None of these are bottom level records – the information on them is ALWAYS summary/Catagory information
This is most obvious with the actual accounting records.
The Accountant who entered these records into the Trump Accounting system testified that he chose a CODE – legal expenses for these records. That was HIS choice. Every single accounting system I have ever worked with works the same – Every transaction must have a CODE – a GROUP, a CATAGORY chosen for it.
I am absolutely certain there is no accounting system int he world that has a code for “hush money”
I beleive FASB has a standard system of abotu 10,000 codes and sub codes – CATAGORIES. I have NEVER seen anyone use that many.
I wrote an accounting system starting in the late 70’s. Initially it supported 100 numeric codes. Eventually that turned into 8 character alphabetic codes. But despite the theoretical range there were never move that about 300 codes/CATAGORIES used, and in an ordinary month probably about 20 were used , in an ordinary year only about 100 were used. And about half these codes were automated – not entered by humans.
My Point is that Bragg is attacking GROUPING – not Describing.
When the accounting entered the code for “legal expenses” that was the code he used for EVERYTHING involving lawyers.
Retainers, filing fees, reimbursable expenses, such as a lawyer billing you for lunch. Contract negotiation. Court costs.
I would further note that OFTEN decisions have to be made – because something could be catagorized in any of several catagories.
Ia a parking fee a travel expense, an auto expense, a tax, a legal fee ?
NONE of those are wrong, and certainty none are a crime.
The rules of a specific business determine which you use. The government does not care – Unless a coding choice you make causes you to pay less taxes than you should – a small portion of business expense types are not deductible or only partly deductible.
It is NORMAL but not requires that these have their own code. as an example meals close to home are not deductable. Meals 100 miles away are.
Regardless the purpose of accounting records is to SUMMARIZE information for the people managing the business.
So that they do not have to review every single transaction contract or exchange that the business makes.
One other note
I am making a point that everything Bragg is claiming is false is Catagorization – GROUPING.
By its very nature GROUPING ALWAYS strips details – hides information.
“Hiding” details is NOT a crime – it is a fundimental human task.
Every hierarchical system in existence – strips details as you move UP in the hierarchy.
The dock foreman at a warehouse cares that every individual item on the bill of lading arrived on the truck.
The Warehouse manager does not check that detail or care about that detail – except when training the bock foreman or when he thinks the Dock foreman is not doing his job. The reports going to the warehouse foreman strip all detail EXCEPT that which the warehouse forman cares about. The Business manager for the the warehouse wants even LESS detail from the warehouse manager – becaus he has not only his reports but those of a dozen others.
The Regional manager does NOT want the detail that the Warehouse manager does and so on up to the CEO.
ALL Heirarchical structures are about STRIPPING Detail as information climbs the hierarchy.
Do you think Biden reviews the number of bullets in inventory at Fort Bragg ?
The only time someone higher int he hierarchy wants more detail – is when they beleive someone below them in the hierarchy has FAILED at their job.
Very competently explained, thank you. There may be some who still believe this trial is about justice, not politics, and for them, your explanations should definitely help them sort the wheat from the chaff. I suspect, however, that most people understand that this trial is politically motivated and is relying on impressing a feeling on the jury who is likely already inclined to want to punish Trump.
But I’ve never yet met a New Yorker who liked a set-up, especially one where they were being played for chumps. Even if this does go to the jury somehow, I think they might disappoint the partisans.
“But I’ve never yet met a New Yorker who liked a set-up . . .”
Well said.
The only hope for this absurdity is that there is still some “New York” in those New Yorkers.
Jonathan, I love your articles. Thank you! It’s a Longshot that you read this, however, it’s appalling that the conditions of this trial are allowed to happen. Does the defense have no choice but to proceed and the appeal after possible conviction?