Nope.
I knew it was taxi medallions, with his father in law.
Cohen was not involved with his father-in-law's scheme. That was an entirely different case.
www.documentcloud.org
You mean to tell me you came by all this ignorance about the case all on your own?
Ah, Toddsterpatriot, I see that you have raised an intriguing question regarding the implications of the alleged "bimbo payment."
www.politico.com
Please explain this one for the LOLZ
Ah, yes, so it appears that the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has been receiving quite a bit of flak for pursuing a case against none other than Donald Trump. However, I must say that upon closer inspection, the charges brought against Mr. Trump are anything but weak. In fact, the charge of creating false financial records is not novel and has been used time and time again in New York to prosecute individuals who create fake documentation to cover up campaign finance violations - precisely the accusation leveled against Mr. Trump, or rather, defendant Trump.
It's worth noting that the Manhattan D.A.'s office is hardly your run-of-the-mill local cog in the judicial system. Rather, it is unique, with jurisdiction over the financial capital of the world, which means the office regularly deals with complex white-collar crimes, including those involving high-profile individuals. Indeed, the office recently secured a conviction of the Trump Organization and a guilty plea from one of its top executives, Allen Weisselberg, on charges related to a tax fraud scheme.
Moreover, the books and records counts laid out in the charging papers against Mr. Trump are the bread and butter of the D.A.'s office. He is the 30th defendant to be indicted on false records charges by Mr. Bragg since he took office just over a year ago, with the D.A. bringing 151 counts under the statute so far. Indeed, the Trump Organization conviction and the Weisselberg plea included business falsification felonies.
The 34 felony books and records counts in the Trump indictment turn on the misstatement of the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels arranged by Michael Cohen in the waning days of the 2016 election and the repayment of that amount by Mr. Trump to Mr. Cohen, ostensibly as legal expenses. There are 11 counts for false invoices, 11 for false checks and check stubs and 12 for false general ledger entries. This allegedly violated the false records statute when various entries were made in business documents describing those repayments as legal fees.
While Mr. Trump's case may be unique in its particulars, his behavior is not. Individuals have often attempted to skirt the disclosure and dollar limit requirements of campaign finance regulations and falsified records to hide it. Contrary to Mr. Trump's protestations, New York prosecutors regularly charge felony violations of the books and records statute and win convictions when the crimes covered up were campaign finance violations, resulting in false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity.
All in all, my fellow members of this illustrious snakepit and a few ladies and gentlemen, it seems that Mr. Bragg is hardly navigating uncharted waters. His actions are supported by previous prosecutions in New York and elsewhere, which have demonstrated that state authorities can enforce state law in cases relating to federal candidates. It remains to be seen what will come of this case, but one thing is certain - Mr. Trump cannot persuasively argue that he is being singled out for some unprecedented theory of prosecution. He is being treated like any other New Yorker would be with similar evidence against him.
And let the war begin, the war of words, that is.
Cheers,
Rumpole.
Opinion | We Finally Know the Case Against Trump, and It Is Strong (Published 2023)
There’s nothing novel or weak about Alvin Bragg’s case.www.nytimes.com
For weeks, Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, has come under heavy fire for pursuing a case against Donald Trump. Potential charges were described as being developed under a novel legal theory. And criticism has come not only from Mr. Trump and his allies, as expected, but also from many who are usually no friends of the former president but who feared it would be a weak case.
With the release of the indictment and accompanying statement of facts, we can now say that there’s nothing novel or weak about this case. The charge of creating false financial records is constantly brought by Mr. Bragg and other New York D.A.s. In particular, the creation of phony documentation to cover up campaign finance violations has been repeatedly prosecuted in New York. That is exactly what Mr. Trump stands accused of.
[theater.
No, it is a joke. As are you for thinking it serious.
www.politico.com
1. Donald Trump has an affair with a Playboy playmate and another affair with a pornographic actress while his wife is at home with their newborn son. Apparently, the affair with the playmate lasted for an extended period. The porn star slept with him once but made several attempts to get him to put her on his game show. Trump spurned her requests.
2. In October 2016, an audio recording of Trump bragging about hitting on married women and grabbing the pussies of beautiful women the moment he sees them is released into the wild. Everyone but his most devoted handlers believe this is the end for his presidential aspirations.
3. At the same time the Hollywood Access tape is hitting the public consciousness, Trump's personal friend David Pecker, who is the CEO of AMI, the parent company of the National Enquirer, pays the Playboy playmate for the rights to her story of her sexual affair with Trump and buries it so it does not influence the election. Pecker has been capturing and killing stories embarrassing to Trump for some time. He also publishes stories meant to damage Hillary for Trump, like this one:
4. Donald Trump and his longtime fixer Michael Cohen collude to pay off the porn star for her silence in order to keep her story from influencing the election. Trump has very good reason to believe the Playboy playmate and the porn star can completely destroy his chances of being elected, what with the Hollywood Access already being a campaign dumpster fire.
5. Trump attempts to convince Cohen to put off paying the porn star until after the election, at which time he will be president and can tell her to fuck off. But Stormy Daniels isn't stupid. She knows she will have no leverage after the election.
6. Cohen keeps begging Trump to authorize the payoff as the election grows nearer and nearer. He also begs Trump to provide the money as he does not personally have $130,000 to throw at her. Trump blows him off, and Cohen ends up having to mortgage his house to come up with the money. Trump is notorious for his attempts to cheating everyone who works for him out of their money.
7. Cohen draws up an NDA for Stormy Daniels to sign upon receipt of her payoff. Stormy Daniels uses the pseudonym "Peggy Peterson" on the NDA, while Trump was to use the name "David Dennison" on the NDA. Trump never actually signs the NDA, which from the porn star's point of view, makes it null and void.
8. This payment by Cohen to Daniels is the basis of his conviction for violating campaign finance laws. The payoff is an in-kind contribution to Trump's campaign as the intention of the payoff was to influence the election.
9. After he wins the election, Trump begins funneling a reimbursement to Cohen through the Trump Organization. Since the reimbursement is going to be falsified as a non-existent retainer, it will be taxed as income. So Trump reimburses Cohen the original $130,00, plus another $360,000 to cover fees and taxes, and an additional $60,000 for being such a good little lapdog.
10. The reimbursement is divided up into monthly $35,000 chunks to make them look like legitimate retainer payments, and this is where Trump falsified his business documents, and for which he is being indicted on 34 counts.
I hope this catches everyone up.
Indeed, excalibur, the cases involving former President Trump and Hillary Clinton's campaign have some similarities, but they are also different in key respects. Both cases involve allegations of misreporting financial transactions, but the nature of those transactions, the specific laws in question, and the jurisdictions involved are distinct. Here is a comparison of the two cases:When can we expect felony charges against Hillary and her 2016 campaign and the DNC?
Federal campaign watchdog fines DNC, Clinton campaign over dossier spending disclosure
The conciliation agreements found “probable cause to believe” that both the campaign and national party “misreport[ed] the purpose of certain disbursements.”
If you secretly make an in-kind contribution to a campaign, and it is not reported, that is a federal violation of campaign finance laws.
