Why Alvin and not the Feds? Or, why Cohen and not Individual 1?

[WorldWatcher]

That is a poor interpretation.

That for an NDA/Settlement to be business related it has to - you know - be related to the business?

LOLz

WW

 

[Billiejeens]

That for an NDA/Settlement to be business related it has to - you know - be related to the business?

LOLz

WW

You don't believe that negative publicity regarding a highly placed executive in a business could adversely affect that business?

 

[WorldWatcher]

You don't believe that negative publicity regarding a highly placed executive in a business could adversely affect that business?

I didn't say whether the business would pay or not.

I said that to be a business expense it would have to be a function of the business.
.
.
.
.
And as we will see in the court case involving FPOTUS#45 the intent was not about protecting the business, it was about protecting the campaign just days before the election.

WW

 

[Billiejeens]

I didn't say whether the business would pay or not.

I said that to be a business expense it would have to be a function of the business.
.
.
.
.
And as we will see in the court case involving FPOTUS#45 the intent was not about protecting the business, it was about protecting the campaign just days before the election.

WW

There you go again about the campaign.
(Now deny that you mentioned it)

It could easily be interpreted to be an expense that the corporation paid to avoid bad publicity.

Just like paying for advertising (good publicity)

 

[elektra]

All I know Cohen was sentenced to three years in jail for this crime...

What is Trump getting... Cohen co-operated , Trump did not...

BTW, Bragg has a history of going for this on boths sides...

Survey of Past Criminal Prosecutions for Covert Payments to Benefit a Political Campaign

Surreptitious third-party payments are routinely prosecuted as campaign finance violations in New York and nationally under various statutes.

www.justsecurity.org

The biggest problem Trump has is this:
"In court papers, prosecutors say that Trump tried to stall the Daniels payoff “for as long as possible”. Trump told Cohen that if he could delay the exchange until after the election, they might be able to avoid giving her any money, “because at that point it would not matter if the story became public”

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+didn%27t+want+to+pay+Stormy+until+after+the+election&rlz=1C5CHFA_enIE791IE791&oq=trump+didn%27t+want+to+pay+Stormy+until+after+the+election&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTE0NDI1ajBqOagCALACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#:~:text=Trump%27s%20hush%2Dmoney,news%20%E2%80%BA%20apr%20%E2%80%BA%20trump%2D...

If they prove this, it is game over for Trump...
While Cohen isn't very reliable, either is Trump... But the payment (11 days before the election) is so close to the election it is hard say that it isn't campaign related.
Add in that it was then falsified on Business Records, you just committed a crime involving undisclosed Campaign donation. This is like robbing a mom and pop post office, it is a serious federal crime.

all I know, is it is not a crime, and that courts have jailed the innocent for over a hundred years

 

[elektra]

"While Cohen had pleaded guilty, our office continued to pursue investigations related to other possible campaign finance violations. When Barr took over in Feb. of 2019, he not only tried to kill the ongoing investigations but...incredibly...suggested that Cohen's conviction on campaign finance charges be reversed."

Individual 1's AG interfered with the Cohen conviction so the whole sordid matter wouldn't look as bad for Trump. Try as you might to find one there is no equivalence to that.

how about posting the law, in it's exact words

This was not a crime, despite what the court said

 

[elektra]

Whataboutism noted.

“With Bill Barr, on an amazing number of occasions … you can be almost 100 percent certain that there’s something improper going on,” said Donald Ayer, the former deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration.

The president has only inflamed such suspicions, congratulating Barr on Wednesday for intervening in Stone’s case and teeing off hours later on the prosecutors, calling them “Mueller people” who treated Stone “very badly.”

yes, duly noted, Congress did the same exact thing for decades, millions of dollars in what you call hush money, which is not mentioned in the law that Trump was charged with.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There you go again about the campaign.
(Now deny that you mentioned it)

Yes. You are confusing

Expense or not

With

Campaign or not

They are different things.

It could easily be interpreted to be an expense that the corporation paid to avoid bad publicity.

Just like paying for advertising (good publicity)

It could, under normal circumstances. But just days before an election isn't normal circumstances.

And I believe that the DA will be making this part of the case showing intent and the connection to Cohen's campaign finance conviction. IIRC the prosecution witness is incudes:

• Michael Cohen
• Stormy Daniels
• Keith Davidson
• Karen McDougal
• David Pecker
• Dylan Howard
• Jeffrey McConney
• Kellyanne Conway
• Rhona Graff
• Madeline Westerhout
• Hope Hicks
• Plus others

Notice that testimony will be offered not just from Cohen and Daniels, it will be presented by FPOTUS#45 insiders and staff members. Their testimony will introduce a variety of evidence such as phone records, audio tapes, texts, emails, and other documents.

If read reports that the plan was to try to delay paying Daniels until after the election to then stiff her on the money transfer (it didn't work). But if the claim was it was to "protect the brand" then why try to wait until after the election? The "brand" would be just as damaged. Not it was about the election.

WW

 

[Care4all]

Paying a porn star to protect the campaign isn't a business expense.

Paying a porn star isn't a campaign contribution.

the organization should not have logged it as a "business expense" since business expenses are tax deductible.

NDAs are tax deductible. The recipient has to pay tax on that income.

Can the payor of the money write it off as a business expense, legally??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When it's done to further the campaign, yes it is.



Only partially correct.

Such payments can be a legal business expense when the NDA or "settlement" is related to the business function.

For example, an employee charges sexual harassment against a supervisor during work hours or at a business related event. The business decide to deal with the case with a payout and NDA. In such instances there is a relationship between the business environment and the conduct necessitating the NDA/Settlement.

However, there is no relationship in boinking a porn star in Vegas will attending a golf tournament and New York Real Estate. As such that is a personal expense, not a business expense.

WW

For example, an employee charges sexual harassment against a supervisor during work hours or at a business related event. The business decide to deal with the case with a payout and NDA. In such instances there is a relationship between the business environment and the conduct necessitating the NDA/Settlement.

NDAs for sexual harassment or sexual aren't deductible anymore. They used to be.

NDAs for other reasons are still tax deductible.

 

[WorldWatcher]

For example, an employee charges sexual harassment against a supervisor during work hours or at a business related event. The business decide to deal with the case with a payout and NDA. In such instances there is a relationship between the business environment and the conduct necessitating the NDA/Settlement.

NDAs for sexual harassment or sexual aren't deductible anymore. They used to be.

NDAs for other reasons are still tax deductible.

If related to the business.

Boinking a porn star while at a golf tournament in Vegas isn't business related.

WW

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Can the payor of the money write it off as a business expense, legally??

Unless it's about sexual harassment or abuse.

The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 adds a new provision to the Code, section 162(q), that eliminates deductions for settlement payments related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse “if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure requirement.”

• The new provision also prohibits, in a separate subsection, deductions for attorney’s fees “related to such a settlement or payment.”
• Thus, if an employee asserts a claim of sexual harassment against of coworker or supervisor, and the employer enters into an agreement to settle the claim that includes a standard confidentiality provision, neither the amount of the settlement nor any amount of the settlement allocated to attorneys’ fees can be deducted as a business expense.
• The provision applies to payments made after December 22, 2017.

No Tax Deductions for Sexual Harassment Settlements with Non-Disclosure Agreements

The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 adds a new provision to the Code, section 162(q), that eliminates deductions for settlement payments related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse “if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure requirement.”

natlawreview.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If related to the business.

Boinking a porn star while at a golf tournament in Vegas isn't business related.

WW

Show me where the tax code differentiates between deductible and non-deductible.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Unless it's about sexual harassment or abuse.

The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 adds a new provision to the Code, section 162(q), that eliminates deductions for settlement payments related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse “if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure requirement.”

• The new provision also prohibits, in a separate subsection, deductions for attorney’s fees “related to such a settlement or payment.”
• Thus, if an employee asserts a claim of sexual harassment against of coworker or supervisor, and the employer enters into an agreement to settle the claim that includes a standard confidentiality provision, neither the amount of the settlement nor any amount of the settlement allocated to attorneys’ fees can be deducted as a business expense.
• The provision applies to payments made after December 22, 2017.

No Tax Deductions for Sexual Harassment Settlements with Non-Disclosure Agreements

The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 adds a new provision to the Code, section 162(q), that eliminates deductions for settlement payments related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse “if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure requirement.”

natlawreview.com

Thanks for the update.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Show me where the tax code differentiates between deductible and non-deductible.

Income & expenses | Internal Revenue Service

www.irs.gov

Personal expenses are not tax deductible as part of a business.

Screwing a porn start at a golf tournament isn't a business expense.

WW

 

[Billiejeens]

Yes. You are confusing

Expense or not

With

Campaign or not

They are different things.



It could, under normal circumstances. But just days before an election isn't normal circumstances.

And I believe that the DA will be making this part of the case showing intent and the connection to Cohen's campaign finance conviction. IIRC the prosecution witness is incudes:

• Michael Cohen
• Stormy Daniels
• Keith Davidson
• Karen McDougal
• David Pecker
• Dylan Howard
• Jeffrey McConney
• Kellyanne Conway
• Rhona Graff
• Madeline Westerhout
• Hope Hicks
• Plus others

Notice that testimony will be offered not just from Cohen and Daniels, it will be presented by FPOTUS#45 insiders and staff members. Their testimony will introduce a variety of evidence such as phone records, audio tapes, texts, emails, and other documents.

If read reports that the plan was to try to delay paying Daniels until after the election to then stiff her on the money transfer (it didn't work). But if the claim was it was to "protect the brand" then why try to wait until after the election? The "brand" would be just as damaged. Not it was about the election.

WW

While your prejudice against President Trump is overwhelming you, it is underwhelming me.
The timing is not suspicious at all.
The best timing for the extortion was exactly when the extortion happened.

 

[berg80]

The essence of the thread is how Trump corruptly used the DoJ, and a willing AG, to fend off federal charges for his hush money scheme. The kind of thing that gets virtually no reaction from Team Trump because corruption is the norm for him. But would send them in to an apoplectic frenzy if Biden did something similar to protect himself or his kid.

But because Joe hasn't, the Trump cult has to make shit up.

 

[berg80]

NDAs are legal.

Is that going to be His Orangeness's defense strategy? Cuz it has nothing to do with the charges of falsifying biz docs he is facing.

 

[Billiejeens]

The essence of the thread is how Trump corruptly used the DoJ, and a willing AG, to fend off federal charges for his hush money scheme. The kind of thing that gets virtually no reaction from Team Trump because corruption is the norm for him. But would send them in to an apoplectic frenzy if Biden did something similar to protect himself or his kid.

But because Joe hasn't, the Trump cult has to make shit up.

No
The essence of the thread, in totality, is how Democrats, knowing that their candidate has been, and will continue to be an abject failure will use literally any interpretation of the law to try to disable the campaign of the man that they see that they cannot beat in an actual election.

 

[berg80]

"If there was no crime the case would have been thrown out."

My fervent wish would be that simpletons such as yourself could step out of your Cult long enough to read something that stupid and think - God Damn that was fucking stupid on my part.

From what I've read Trump is going to deny involvement in the key conversations about hush money payments made through Cohen. And then likely claim he had no knowledge of the biz docs being falsified. Not that there was no crime committed........nitwit.