Trump-Stormy Daniels settlement at heart of potential NY DA indictment didn't violate

Jarod said:
Judges are charged, under the constitution, with interpreting the law and determining its constitutionality. How the law applies in different circumstances is part of interpreting the laws. You need to go back to 6th grade civics if you do not understand that. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
Click to expand...

irrelevant, given the fact that the judges did not change the election procedures in Wisconsin, Georgia or Arizona.....election officials did......
 
QP! said:
OMG the guy who pretends to be a lawyer again shows he knows nothing about the law or how good lawyer conduct business.
Click to expand...
I am sorry you have no clue what is going on here.......but I don't give a fuck what you pretend is happening.....

there was a negotiated agreement. Cohen paid the consideration and billed it to Trump as client costs. Trump paid the bill. When I invoice clients for fees and costs I pay taxes on the fees. Why would I pay taxes on the costs? They are not my income. It is also not a contribution. The client is paying me back......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
more things you idiots make up on the fly......
Click to expand...

I don't have to make up anything. Why do you deny what the court accepted?
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/p...ral-court-eight-counts-including-criminal-tax
In January 2017, COHEN in seeking reimbursement for election-related expenses, presented executives of the Company with a copy of a bank statement from the Essential Consultants bank account, which reflected the $130,000 payment COHEN had made to the bank account of Attorney-1 in order to keep Woman-2 silent in advance of the election, plus a $35 wire fee, adding, in handwriting, an additional “$50,000.” The $50,000 represented a claimed payment for “tech services,” which in fact related to work COHEN had solicited from a technology company during and in connection with the campaign. COHEN added these amounts to a sum of $180,035. After receiving this document, executives of the Company “grossed up” for tax purposes COHEN’s requested reimbursement of $180,000 to $360,000, and then added a bonus of $60,000 so that COHEN would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company also determined that the $420,000 would be paid to COHEN in monthly amounts of $35,000 over the course of 12 months, and that COHEN should send invoices for these payments.

On February 14, 2017, COHEN sent an executive of the Company (“Executive-1”) the first of his monthly invoices, requesting “[p]ursuant to [a] retainer agreement, . . . payment for services rendered for the months of January and February, 2017.” The invoice listed $35,000 for each of those two months. Executive-1 forwarded the invoice to another executive of the Company (“Executive-2”) the same day by email, and it was approved. Executive-1 forwarded that email to another employee at the Company, stating: “Please pay from the Trust. Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January and February 2017’ in the description.”

Throughout 2017, COHEN sent to one or more representatives of the Company monthly invoices, which stated, “Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for” the relevant month in 2017, and sought $35,000 per month. The Company accounted for these payments as legal expenses. In truth and in fact, there was no such retainer agreement, and the monthly invoices COHEN submitted were not in connection with any legal services he had provided in 2017.

During 2017, pursuant to the invoices described above, COHEN received monthly $35,000 reimbursement checks, totaling $420,000.
Click to expand...
 
Jarod said:
Its not, they interpret
Click to expand...
Correct. They rewrote the laws concerting mail in vote and time that votes could be counted in etc. The court does not have that authority. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all had courts that rewrote, not interpreted, portions of their voter laws. They should have bounced back to the legislature what they thought was illegal . They didn't do that because the existing laws were legal. They just didn't like them so they illegally changed them. The 2020 election was tainted. Judges that changed the law did so fraudulently.
 
ExpressLane said:
Correct. They rewrote the laws concerting mail in vote and time that votes could be counted in etc. The court does not have that authority. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all had courts that rewrote, not interpreted, portions of their voter laws. They should have bounced back to the legislature what they thought was illegal . They didn't do that because the existing laws were legal. They just didn't like them so they illegally changed them. The 2020 election was tainted. Judges that changed the law did so fraudulently.
Click to expand...

Silly, untrue, you lying Trumpper.
 
ExpressLane said:
Correct. They rewrote the laws concerting mail in vote and time that votes could be counted in etc. The court does not have that authority. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all had courts that rewrote, not interpreted, portions of their voter laws. They should have bounced back to the legislature what they thought was illegal . They didn't do that because the existing laws were legal. They just didn't like them so they illegally changed them. The 2020 election was tainted. Judges that changed the law did so fraudulently.
Click to expand...

Explain to me what it is they did that you believe is writing the law? Then explain to me how that made it an unconstitutional election…. You can’t.
 
ExpressLane said:
And the former FEC official says that isn't illegal and remember that the FEC did not fine or bring a case against Trump for that.

Get your caretaker to read you this
Click to expand...

The opinion of one former FEC official is only one opinion.

The FEC itself did not say the action was not illegal but voted 2-2 not to pursue the investigation because of possible statute of limitation issues and it would be redundant because of the previous DOJ investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/06/fec-trump-stormy-daniels-cohen/
 
Flash said:
The opinion of one former FEC official is only one opinion.

The FEC itself did not say the action was not illegal but voted 2-2 not to pursue the investigation because of possible statute of limitation issues and it would be redundant because of the previous DOJ investigation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/06/fec-trump-stormy-daniels-cohen/
Click to expand...
So not illegal. Remember Gary Edwards had a contributor pay $1 million for his pregnant mistress and that was deemed legal. Trump used his own money to conceal an affair from his own family. Totally legal according to former FEC official Von Spakovsky.

"If the state charges are based on a supposed violation of federal campaign finance law, then the Manhattan DA is way off base," Hans von Spakovsky told Fox News Digital.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...ictment-didnt-violate-campaign-law-fec-expert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top