Popular Post ctm Posted April 5, 2023 Popular Post Report Share Posted April 5, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Oilertattoo said: Weismann: the DA doesn't have to prove the secondary crimes, and therefore doesn't have to charge it. All he has to do is show intent to commit the secondary crime (election fraud, tax fraud) for the booking keeping entrees to be bumped to a felony. I'll take Weismann's (former general council to the FBI) word over Mark Levin who is nothing more than a right wing blow hard on talk radio. Edited April 5, 2023 by ctm OILERMAN, Oilertattoo, IsntLifeFunny, and 2 others 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oilertattoo Posted April 5, 2023 Report Share Posted April 5, 2023 57 minutes ago, ctm said: Mark Levin who is nothing more than a right wing blow hard on talk radio. Nowadays, aren't they all? Exhausting. MadMax, WG53, and ctm 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine Posted April 5, 2023 Report Share Posted April 5, 2023 According to the briefing that lists the charges, many payments were drawn against a trust account…which is nothing like a personal bank account. Trusts are regulated by laws and regulations that are very specific as to what money can (and can’t)be spent on , very much like a commercial business account. If Trump paid Daniels out of his own pocket….not a crime. If Trump arranged to have Daniels paid off from a trust account….unless he can show that payment was an operational expense specifically related to the trust or a distribution to one of the trust’s beneficiaries , that payment would almost certainly constitute a crime. (Probably “misappropriation of funds” or something along those lines). If Cohen paid off Daniels and Trump then reimbursed Cohen with funds from the trust….then he effectively tried to circumvent a crime (the illegal payoff to Daniels) by falsifying records and writing it off as a trust business expense paid to Cohen….which is also a crime. Had Trump simply paid Daniels out of his own pocket, then everything is perfectly legal and the story probably never comes to light. No harm, no foul. But the charges levied against him suggest Trump (who has always fancied himself as a master negotiator and deal maker) believed he could work the system, sneaking the payments through as if they were a trust expense, so he avoid paying out of pocket or any connection to Daniels . He tried to cover up the payments to Daniels…and arranged another illegal coverup to hide the initial coverup. It obviously falls to the DA to prove this is what happened….but it’s very much on brand for Trump to think he’s the smartest guy in the room only to find he outsmarted himself. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted April 5, 2023 Report Share Posted April 5, 2023 8 minutes ago, nine said: According to the briefing that lists the charges, many payments were drawn against a trust account…which is nothing like a personal bank account. Trusts are regulated by laws and regulations that are very specific as to what money can (and can’t)be spent on , very much like a commercial business account. If Trump paid Daniels out of his own pocket….not a crime. If Trump arranged to have Daniels paid off from a trust account….unless he can show that payment was an operational expense specifically related to the trust or a distribution to one of the trust’s beneficiaries , that payment would almost certainly constitute a crime. (Probably “misappropriation of funds” or something along those lines). If Cohen paid off Daniels and Trump then reimbursed Cohen with funds from the trust….then he effectively tried to circumvent a crime (the illegal payoff to Daniels) by falsifying records and writing it off as a trust business expense paid to Cohen….which is also a crime. Had Trump simply paid Daniels out of his own pocket, then everything is perfectly legal and the story probably never comes to light. No harm, no foul. But the charges levied against him suggest Trump (who has always fancied himself as a master negotiator and deal maker) believed he could work the system, sneaking the payments through as if they were a trust expense, so he avoid paying out of pocket or any connection to Daniels . He tried to cover up the payments to Daniels…and arranged another illegal coverup to hide the initial coverup. It obviously falls to the DA to prove this is what happened….but it’s very much on brand for Trump to think he’s the smartest guy in the room only to find he outsmarted himself. It might depend on the nature of the trust, but it being a trust certainly seems likely play a role in the case nine 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctm Posted April 5, 2023 Report Share Posted April 5, 2023 I remember Bragg hiring a very experienced forensic accountant to work on this case. I also remember Cohen saying in an audio that he needed to get with Weisselberg to set up a company to make the payments thru. They know the paper trail. reo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted April 5, 2023 Report Share Posted April 5, 2023 1 hour ago, nine said: If Trump paid Daniels out of his own pocket….not a crime. Trump doesn't pay anything out of pocket. It all comes from his businesses and other areas. begooode 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
begooode Posted April 5, 2023 Report Share Posted April 5, 2023 11 minutes ago, reo said: Trump doesn't pay anything out of pocket. It all comes from his businesses and other areas. This is one of the things that kills me about Trump, dude is so petty / cheap / small-minded. It's always about getting over on the next guy, his lawyers/contractors, the government, the taxman, it doesn't matter. Yet, in most occasions the Trump's had the money to pay. But not him. He's waaaayyy too smart to 'give away' his cash. Everybody else is a sucker. reo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted April 5, 2023 Report Share Posted April 5, 2023 52 minutes ago, reo said: Trump doesn't pay anything out of pocket. It all comes from his businesses and other areas. When he actually pays at all… reo, IsntLifeFunny, and begooode 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted April 6, 2023 Report Share Posted April 6, 2023 Trump isn't winning a general election, that ship has sailed MadMax, and reo 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted April 6, 2023 Report Share Posted April 6, 2023 30 minutes ago, OILERMAN said: Trump isn't winning a general election, that ship has sailed It’s not entirely out of the realm of possibility. Especially if the Supreme Court were to rule that state legislatures can basically override the will of the voters and pick their own electors. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted April 6, 2023 Report Share Posted April 6, 2023 7 hours ago, Starkiller said: It’s not entirely out of the realm of possibility. Especially if the Supreme Court were to rule that state legislatures can basically override the will of the voters and pick their own electors. I wouldn't exactly call that winning an election Jamalisms, and reo 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post OILERMAN Posted April 6, 2023 Popular Post Report Share Posted April 6, 2023 Solid gold scine09, Starkiller, IsntLifeFunny, and 2 others 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nine Posted April 6, 2023 Report Share Posted April 6, 2023 23 hours ago, Starkiller said: It might depend on the nature of the trust, but it being a trust certainly seems likely play a role in the case Very valid point. I’m the trustee for an irrevocable trust my dad set up 30 years ago…so my comments are based on my experiences navigating the laws and restrictions that apply to irrevocable trusts. There’s a separate set of the laws and guidelines for revocable trusts …to my understanding, they allow more flexibility and afford the grantor greater discretion over the allocation and distribution of funds and assets. . But even so, I have a hard time believing the law would allow a revocable trust to pay for a grantor’s dalliances with a porn star…or his payments to a third party to cover it up. Starkiller 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted April 6, 2023 Report Share Posted April 6, 2023 2 hours ago, OILERMAN said: Solid gold Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Earl Posted April 6, 2023 Report Share Posted April 6, 2023 18 hours ago, OILERMAN said: Trump isn't winning a general election, that ship has sailed Trump won’t be convicted on any of these lame charges either, at least after appeals are done overturning a biased libtard jury if it gets that far. DA - Democrat Attorney Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.