Hush Money Trial Starts Monday: Ex-Playmate Karen McDougal details 'love' affair with Trump

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong.
All celebrities are legally allowed to write off PR hush money, and do it all the time.
It is a legitimate business expense since the point of his campaign was to gain about a half million dollar income as president.
Its an investment, NOT a campaign gift.

#1 There are three different entities involved, each is separate: Trump (the individual), Trump Organization (a business entity), and a campaign.

You just solidified that Trump in fact DID pay for the NDA not for personal reasons, but in support of the campaign. Something Trump supporters vehemently deny.
.
.
#2 Boinking a porn star while on vacation in Las Vegas attending a golf tournament is not a legitimate business expense for the Trump Organization. Now the Trump Organization could have paid for the NDA without legal jeopardy by entering it in the ledger for what it was a non-business, non-tax deductible charge. Again, not legal problems. But instead the scheme was to invoice it as "Attorney Fees" (tax deductible) instead of as a non-tax deductible expense.

WW

 

[Rigby5]

The voters get to decide whether she is a Good looking piece of ass, but not worth $150,000 dollars to screw while your wife is nursing your newborn?
Wow! Democracy has come a long way, baby!

No one has ever been prosecuted for affairs before.
This is the lowest we have ever seen.
The law is clear in that it is demanding blackmail that is illegal, not paying it.
All those prosecuting Trump should be in jail.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The law is clear in that it is demanding blackmail that is illegal, not paying it.

Daniels never demanded payment. Daniels did not approach FPOTUS#45 or the campaign demanding money.

Court documents show she was shopping the story to the press. It was David Pecker (AMI Media Inc) that found out and notified the campaign. The campaign then went to her.

WW

 

[Rigby5]

#1 There are three different entities involved, each is separate: Trump (the individual), Trump Organization (a business entity), and a campaign.

You just solidified that Trump in fact DID pay for the NDA not for personal reasons, but in support of the campaign. Something Trump supporters vehemently deny.
.
.
#2 Boinking a porn star while on vacation in Las Vegas attending a golf tournament is not a legitimate business expense for the Trump Organization. Now the Trump Organization could have paid for the NDA without legal jeopardy by entering it in the ledger for what it was a non-business, non-tax deductible charge. Again, not legal problems. But instead the scheme was to invoice it as "Attorney Fees" (tax deductible) instead of as a non-tax deductible expense.

WW

WRONG.
What I said is that Trump paid it for business reasons, which was in order to gain the half million salary of the presidency.

It only becomes a campaign contribution when you give it to someone else, in order for someone else to get the salary.

And clearly is WAS and should be tax deductible.
It was not profit, and Trump was forced to pay it as an expense in order to win the election and gain the salary he was shooting for.

 

[Rigby5]

Daniels never demanded payment. Daniels did not approach FPOTUS#45 or the campaign demanding money.

Court documents show she was shopping the story to the press. It was David Pecker (AMI Media Inc) that found out and notified the campaign. The campaign then went to her.

WW

Makes no difference at all.
When you pay to squelch a harmful story, that is blackmail.
It is immoral and illegal to violate privacy unless paid.

 

[para bellum]

View attachment 934951

View attachment 934954

View attachment 934953

View attachment 934956

That may be an interesting point, don't know if that find point may matter in court.

#1 As you can see from the images above, the Trust was administered by the Trump Organization, so not sure if the separation you are trying to claim actually exists. Since if the Trump Organization was administering the Trust an keep records of transaction, they are still a business entity.

#2 As you can also see from the images above. Where checks were drawn from the Trust the check indicates its from the Trust and the indictment show it in the specific charge. Where the check came from the Trump organization the check is different and the reference to the Trust is omitted from the specific charge.

So even if the "Trust" charges (IIRC 1-7) are disqualified, the remaining 28 so based on the Trump Organization solely remain in play.

WW

You show one check from his personal account in August and one from the trust for the first 2 payments.

The "Trump Organization" is a catch-all term. The trust holds the legal entities which are separate LLC's.

After Trump took office, he had to make Donald Jr. and Weisselberg the sole trustees because Trump couldn't be involved in the operations of his companies while he was in office.

Your suggestion that there is a campaign finance violation, because the trust or one of his companies donated to his campaign over some amount is just wrong. Those companies are all privately owned by Trump, and there is no limit how much a candidate can contribute to his own campaign.

Also NDA's are deductable under Section 162. Only after December 2017 did the IRS start getting fussy about NDA's that were made relative to allegations of sexual harassment and such.

 

[White 6]

No one has ever been prosecuted for affairs before.
This is the lowest we have ever seen.
The law is clear in that it is demanding blackmail that is illegal, not paying it.
All those prosecuting Trump should be in jail.

If he had just fucked those two women and not tried to pay to keep it from the Christian voters that look down on that sort of thing, to the benefit of his election campaign, I doubt he would be prosecuted now. Who knows? Maybe he was just criminally stupid on a campaign finance violation for his immoral actions, or didn't know it was against the law to make hush money payments to aid his campaign. I have heard, ignorance of the law is no excuse. What do you think? Was he criminally stupid, or did he commit intentional criminal acts, figuring he would not get caught or prosecuted? Some people, do think they are above the law and should be able to get away with anything and if people like you, people will go along with it. What do you think?

 

[WorldWatcher]

You show one check from his personal account in August and one from the trust for the first 2 payments.

The "Trump Organization" is a catch-all term. The trust holds the legal entities which are separate LLC's.

After Trump took office, he had to make Donald Jr. and Weisselberg the sole trustees because Trump couldn't be involved in the operations of his companies while he was in office.

Your suggestion that there is a campaign finance violation, because the trust or one of his companies donated to his campaign over some amount is just wrong. Those companies are all privately owned by Trump, and there is no limit how much a candidate can contribute to his own campaign.

I never suggested that FPOTUS#45 made a campaign finance violation, that is a different issue. The only person charged with criminal campaign fraud was Cohen.

I showed from the indictment that your claim: "No, the funds to pay Cohen's invoices came from the DJT Revocable Trust. That is per the court docs. ". Wasn't totally correct.

The court doc's show that the first 7 checks came from the Trust, the remaining checks came from the Trump Organization. I even showed some screen shots showing how the checks were different and how the indictment charges were different.

WW

 

[para bellum]

I never suggested that FPOTUS#45 made a campaign finance violation, that is a different issue. The only person charged with criminal campaign fraud was Cohen.

I showed from the indictment that your claim: "No, the funds to pay Cohen's invoices came from the DJT Revocable Trust. That is per the court docs. ". Wasn't totally correct.

The court doc's show that the first 7 checks came from the Trust, the remaining checks came from the Trump Organization. I even showed some screen shots showing how the checks were different and how the indictment charges were different.

WW

The other checks are from Donald J. Trump's personal checking account. There is no "Trump Organization LLC" or anything like that. It is a catch-all term that includes everything Trump owns.

There is no difference in the charges on the indictment from one check or the other- the charges are identical, just the name on the account is a different name.

The money to pay Cohen came from the trust or his personal account. There is no violation of campaign finance rules, even if the NDA is considered a campaign finance contribution from Cohen (a subject for debate in itself).

It is also not against the law to use money from a privately held LLC's business account for personal expenditures. It is not GAAP compliant- but it's not illegal, provided the LLC does not deduct the expense on it's taxes. It's a pass-thru, and the income is captured as salary or dividend to the owner.

 

[para bellum]

I never suggested that FPOTUS#45 made a campaign finance violation, that is a different issue.

Yes you did in your post #86, you said:

...Exceeds the business entity campaign contribution limit (candidates can make personal unlimited contributions, but the Trump Organization is a business entity seperate from candidate FPOTUS#45).

That is not true- Trump's companies are privately held by Trump and there is no limit on what he spends on his own campaign. He can drain those bank accounts if he wants to.

(and the "Trump Organization" is not a business entity, as I said before)

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well I'm glad we found our area of disagreement. I said: "but the Trump Organization is a business entity separate from candidate FPOTUS#45)."

Trump (the corporal man), Trump Trust, and Trump Organization are different legal entities. They are NOT all the same.

Whether you are correct (there is no difference) or I'm correct (they are separate legal entities) - and therefore subject to different rules - we shall see over the next 4-6 weeks.

But the state will be showing to the jury that the Trump Organization (business entity) falsified business records (not personal records) when members of the organization along with FPOTUS#45 conspired to commit the crime that Cohen was convicted of.

Will it be enough to convince a jury? Don't know. But it will be fund to watch.

WW

 

[Lakhota]

 

[para bellum]

But the state will be showing to the jury that the Trump Organization (business entity) falsified business records (not personal records) when members of the organization along with FPOTUS#45 conspired to commit the crime that Cohen was convicted of.

LMAO if that's the theory of this case.

Trump the candidate conspired to have Cohen make an illegal campaign contribution, when Trump the candidate (who actually provided the funds) could have made it himself and it would not have been illegal...

Yeah, that's not contrived at all...

 

[para bellum]

Trump (the corporal man), Trump Trust, and Trump Organization are different legal entities. They are NOT all the same.

Okay I looked it up, there are entities called the Trump Organization. There is an LLC and an Inc. I stand corrected on that point.

I understand what legal entities are. It does not change the fact that a company that is owned by a candidate is not limited by campaign expenditure laws wrt his own campaign.

------------------------------------------------

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), contributions are subject to limits. This page examines the rules concerning the limits placed on contributions to a candidate’s campaign. The limits apply to all types of contributions (except contributions made from a candidate’s personal funds).

Contribution limits - FEC.gov

The federal contribution limits that apply to contributions made to a federal candidate's campaign for the U.S. House, U.S. Senate or U.S. President. Includes limits that apply to individual donations, as well as to contributions by political action committees (PACs) and party committees to...

www.fec.gov

-------------------------------------------------------------

11 CFR 100.33

Personal funds of a candidate means the sum of all of the following:

(a) Assets. Amounts derived from any asset that, under applicable State law, at the time the individual became a candidate, the candidate had legal right of access to or control over, and with respect to which the candidate had—
(1) Legal and rightful title; or
(2) An equitable interest;

(b) Income. Income received during the current election cycle, of the candidate, including:
(1) A salary and other earned income that the candidate earns from bona fide employment;
(2) Income from the candidate's stocks or other investments including interest, dividends, or proceeds from the sale or liquidation of such stocks or investments;
(3) Bequests to the candidate;
(4) Income from trusts established before the beginning of the election cycle;
(5) Income from trusts established by bequest after the beginning of the election cycle of which the candidate is the beneficiary;
(6) Gifts of a personal nature that had been customarily received by the candidate prior to the beginning of the election cycle; and
(7) Proceeds from lotteries and similar legal games of chance; and

(c) Jointly owned assets. Amounts derived from a portion of assets that are owned jointly by the candidate and the candidate's spouse as follows:
(1) The portion of assets that is equal to the candidate's share of the asset under the instrument of conveyance or ownership; provided, however,
(2) If no specific share is indicated by an instrument of conveyance or ownership, the value of one-half of the property.

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

 

[WorldWatcher]

Okay I looked it up, there are entities called the Trump Organization. There is an LLC and an Inc. I stand corrected on that point.

I understand what legal entities are. It does not change the fact that a company that is owned by a candidate is not limited by campaign expenditure laws wrt his own campaign.

------------------------------------------------

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act), contributions are subject to limits. This page examines the rules concerning the limits placed on contributions to a candidate’s campaign. The limits apply to all types of contributions (except contributions made from a candidate’s personal funds).

Contribution limits - FEC.gov

The federal contribution limits that apply to contributions made to a federal candidate's campaign for the U.S. House, U.S. Senate or U.S. President. Includes limits that apply to individual donations, as well as to contributions by political action committees (PACs) and party committees to...

www.fec.gov

-------------------------------------------------------------

11 CFR 100.33

Personal funds of a candidate means the sum of all of the following:

(a) Assets. Amounts derived from any asset that, under applicable State law, at the time the individual became a candidate, the candidate had legal right of access to or control over, and with respect to which the candidate had—
(1) Legal and rightful title; or
(2) An equitable interest;

(b) Income. Income received during the current election cycle, of the candidate, including:
(1) A salary and other earned income that the candidate earns from bona fide employment;
(2) Income from the candidate's stocks or other investments including interest, dividends, or proceeds from the sale or liquidation of such stocks or investments;
(3) Bequests to the candidate;
(4) Income from trusts established before the beginning of the election cycle;
(5) Income from trusts established by bequest after the beginning of the election cycle of which the candidate is the beneficiary;
(6) Gifts of a personal nature that had been customarily received by the candidate prior to the beginning of the election cycle; and
(7) Proceeds from lotteries and similar legal games of chance; and

(c) Jointly owned assets. Amounts derived from a portion of assets that are owned jointly by the candidate and the candidate's spouse as follows:
(1) The portion of assets that is equal to the candidate's share of the asset under the instrument of conveyance or ownership; provided, however,
(2) If no specific share is indicated by an instrument of conveyance or ownership, the value of one-half of the property.

Federal Register :: Request Access

www.ecfr.gov

Great thanks for the info. I’ve seen it before but appreciate the effort.

Just to be clear the page supports what I said. Expenditures but the Trump Organization are not candidate personal funds, the Trump Organization is a separate legal entity.

WW

 

[para bellum]

Expenditures but the Trump Organization are not candidate personal funds, the Trump Organization is a separate legal entity.

They ARE personal funds as per 11 CFR 100.33

The Trump Organization, the DJT Trust, and all the affiliated LLC's are assets that Trump has legal right and control over. That makes them personal funds as far as the FEC and campaign finance laws are concerned. There are no funding limits that apply to those entities wrt the Trump campaign.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They ARE personal funds as per 11 CFR 100.33

The Trump Organization, the DJT Trust, and all the affiliated LLC's are assets that Trump has legal right and control over. That makes them personal funds as far as the FEC and campaign finance laws are concerned. There are no funding limits that apply to those entities wrt the Trump campaign.

That’s fine won’t continue to exchange on this.

FPOTUS#45 isn’t charged with campaign finance acts. So at the end of the day they are still not charges.

WW

 

[para bellum]

FPOTUS#45 isn’t charged with campaign finance acts. So at the end of the day they are still not charges.

That's right. If he had committed any crimes related to campaign financing, he would have been charged a long time ago.

That Cohen pled to one does not make Trump guilty of anything. The theory of the underlying crime that you put forward does not make any sense- e.g. claiming that Trump conspired with Cohen to commit campaign fraud, when Trump was not bound by contribution limits in the first place.

The fact that Trump reimbursed Cohen long before any charges were ever filed undermines the argument that it was a campaign contribution at all...

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's right. If he had committed any crimes related to campaign financing, he would have been charged a long time ago.

#1 The DOJ isn't allowed to charge a sitting President, so they passed.

#2 The professionals in the FEC recommended investigations that were blocked by the GOP members of the commission.

That Cohen pled to one does not make Trump guilty of anything.

Never said it did. It's FPOTUS#45 actions that will make him guilty or not.

The theory of the underlying crime that you put forward does not make any sense- e.g. claiming that Trump conspired with Cohen to commit campaign fraud,

Actually it makes perfect since, speaking of motivation, not the crime. The Bush "Grab'em by the Vagina" tape had just come out and the campiagn was in panic mode. The last thing they wanted was another sexcapades on top of it. Hence the "Catch and Kill" scheme cooked up by FPOTUS#45, David Pecker, the campaign and Cohen.

when Trump was not bound by contribution limits in the first place.

FPOTUS#45 isn't charged with violating campaign limits, he's charged with falsification of business records.

The fact that Trump reimbursed Cohen long before any charges were ever filed undermines the argument that it was a campaign contribution at all...

The fact that FPOTUS#45 reimbursed Cohen before the crimes were discovered, really?

The idea that someone didn't commit a crime because the crime was complete before the crime was discovered make no logical sense.

WW

 

[para bellum]

#1 The DOJ isn't allowed to charge a sitting President, so they passed.

#2 The professionals in the FEC recommended investigations that were blocked by the GOP members of the commission.

They had plenty of time to charge him after he was out of office.

The FEC investigated and dismissed the complaints, and the DOJ isn't bound by FEC findings anyway.

MUR #7313 - FEC.gov

Clarify campaign finance legal requirements on the new fec.gov. Search across advisory opinions, closed Matters Under Review, statutes, and regulations all at once, with search results designed to help you find what you need quickly.

www.fec.gov

Never said it did. It's FPOTUS#45 actions that will make him guilty or not.

Yes, we're trying to figure out the crime he is being charged with that turns the misdemeanor into a felony.

Actually it makes perfect since, speaking of motivation, not the crime. The Bush "Grab'em by the Vagina" tape had just come out and the campiagn was in panic mode. The last thing they wanted was another sexcapades on top of it. Hence the "Catch and Kill" scheme cooked up by FPOTUS#45, David Pecker, the campaign and Cohen.

The American voters knew who Trump was.

FPOTUS#45 isn't charged with violating campaign limits, he's charged with falsification of business records.

Yes and you say he falsified them to cover up a crime that he was not really a beneficiary of- Cohen's "excessive contribution". It was just the timing of it that made it a campaign related issue.

The fact that FPOTUS#45 reimbursed Cohen before the crimes were discovered, really?

The idea that someone didn't commit a crime because the crime was complete before the crime was discovered make no logical sense.

WW

The "crime" is making an excessive campaign contribution, but it was always understood that Cohen was going to be reimbursed. Hence it was not really a contribution at all- it was just an attorney carrying a balance owed for a couple months.

It's not a crime to enter into NDA's for reputational protection.

I don't really even see what the falsification of the business record is- recording a payment to an attorney as a legal expense? So? It's not a tax return, if the NDA wasn't expensable, the IRS can come after him.