quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
So basically, the DOJ/FBI manufactured "evidence" at Mar A Lago.

Seems pretty obvious, and not the least bit surprising anymore...

quote:

Originally posted by bronicabill:

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
So basically, the DOJ/FBI manufactured "evidence" at Mar A Lago.

Seems pretty obvious, and not the least bit surprising anymore...

The DOJ/FBI are claiming the bullshit cover sheets were for the DOJ/FBI's organizational purposes, all printed up, looking official and camera friendly. Plausible deniability, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Trump attorneys highlight key reason why Cohen payments were labeled ‘legal expenses’

https://www.washingtonexaminer...eled-legal-expenses/

Former President Donald Trump is on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying records of a hush money payment, but his defense attorneys made the case in court this week that the way the Trump Organization recorded the expense was aboveboard.

Jeffrey McConney, a former controller who oversaw accounting at Trump’s company, testified this week about the process of recording the $420,000 that Trump paid his ex-attorney Michael Cohen in 2017. The payment is now at the heart of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s charges against the former president.

McConney explained how the Trump Organization, like many companies, used a computer program to maintain its ledger of expenses and revenue. Entries on the ledger corresponded to various accounting categories, such as utility bills or real estate taxes, and users were limited to the choices available in the computer program.

“Legal expense” was one of these categories in the Trump Organization’s accounting system, according to evidence presented during the trial. McConney instructed an accountant to categorize the payments to Cohen as legal expenses “because we were paying a lawyer,” he testified.

“[Legal expense] was basically part of a dropdown menu?” Trump’s attorney Emil Bove asked during his cross-examination of McConney.

“Yes,” McConney replied.

“These categories, there was a level of rigidity to them, right?” Bove asked, observing how the accounting computer program was a product of the 1990s.

“Yes,” McConney said.

“If you are talking about payments to an attorney, legal expenses, that was the account [category] that was used, right?” Bove asked.

“Yes, sir,” McConney said.

McConney also explained how then-CFO Allen Weisselberg approached him in January 2017 about the plan to reimburse Cohen after Cohen paid porn star Stormy Daniels’s lawyer $130,000 to silence her days ahead of the 2016 election.

McConney testified that he was not aware of the reason for the reimbursement and only followed the payment structure Weisselberg presented to him. The plan involved paying Cohen back for the $130,000, as well as paying him for an unrelated technology service, a bonus payment, and enough to cover taxes on the payment.

The amount totaled $420,000, and it was paid in 11 installments to Cohen in 2017, according to evidence.

The payments began in 2017 at a chaotic transition time for Trump’s accounting team, as it had to adjust to Trump taking office in January of that year, McConney said. He also said Cohen had left the Trump Organization’s payroll at that time and was instead functioning as an independent vendor whom Trump used as a personal attorney. This changed how payments were directed to Cohen, McConney said, noting how the payments to Cohen could not be categorized as payroll expenses.

In 2017, Cohen submitted invoices to Trump’s company, McConney approved the payments, and an accountant categorized them in the computer program as “legal expenses” with a description that the expenses were for a retainer.

Bragg, an elected Democrat, alleged in a statement of facts that categorizing the payments as “legal expenses” was fraudulent and designed to avoid taxes.

“In truth, there was no retainer agreement, and [Cohen] was not being paid for legal services rendered in 2017,” Bragg wrote.

Bove made the point during his examination of McConney that retainers can be verbal agreements.

Bragg has argued that the payments made to Cohen did not reflect, as they should have, that they were covering an outstanding debt. Bragg has alleged that this would have changed how taxes were handled on the payment, though Cohen’s receipt of $420,000 was still reported to the IRS on 1099 forms, according to evidence.

It is unclear how Bragg would have categorized the payments in a computer system that is limited by a dropdown menu of ways users can categorize payments.

Trump echoed Bove’s and McConney’s sentiments to reporters on Tuesday, doubling down on the validity of paying Cohen for legal expenses.

“We paid a lawyer expense payments,” Trump said. “We didn’t put it down as construction costs, the purchase of Sheetrock, the electrical cost. The legal expense that we paid was put down as ‘legal expense.’ There’s nothing else you could say.”

^^ Ha

Who is guy in the suit?

That's crybaby Adam Kinzinger

Some TDS mess I came across. These people are going to need straight jackets if Trump wins

https://www.reddit.com/r/Boome...boomers_you_know_in/


How do you think the MAGA boomers you know in your life are going to react when Trump passes away?



The title speaks for itself. The millions of Americans who support Trump as a cult leader. The people who adhere to the 14 characteristics of fascism to a tee. The people who would replace my oxygen with hydrogen cyanide if they could get away with it. I'm honestly worried for the day Trump goes away, even though I will be so happy. I think there collectively there will be millions of people having a mental breakdown simultaneously, which will lead to psychosis, which can lead to violence. When I get that notification that Trump is no longer with us, I'm planning to get as far away from anyone I know who is MAGA for the next few days. It's just going to be an insane day when it inevitably happens. The contrast between people dancing in the streets and crying tears of happiness, and people who are (genuinely, mind you) having an emotional response identical to finding out their child has been murdered... It's scary to think about that day. What do you all think?

Edit: Anyone who thinks I'm overreacting, just simply haven't witnessed just how completely far gone some of his

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:

quote:

Originally posted by bronicabill:

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
So basically, the DOJ/FBI manufactured "evidence" at Mar A Lago.

Seems pretty obvious, and not the least bit surprising anymore...

The DOJ/FBI are claiming the bullshit cover sheets were for the DOJ/FBI's organizational purposes, all printed up, looking official and camera friendly. Plausible deniability, wink wink, nudge nudge.

Somebody tell those guys they used the wrong cover sheets.

quote:

Originally posted by BigSwede:
Some TDS mess I came across. These people are going to need straight jackets if Trump wins

Reddit is a world unto its own when it comes to Trump hate and leftist mania.

Straight jackets? Yeah. Yeah, you're probably right about that.

So if it is confirmed that Daniels was blackmailing Trump, why isn’t she being charged?

The Indiana Republican presidential primary was yesterday. This was a Republican registered voters only primary. Democrats and independents could not vote in the primary. The results are that 78% voted for Trump. Nikki Haley had 22% of the vote. That's a fairly high percentage for Haley- for so long after Haley dropped out. What does that mean? I don't know. Except I do think that it's going to be a close election. I don't see any landslides for anybody.

^^^It means...well, Idiots!

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
The results are that 78% voted for Trump. Nikki Haley had 22% of the vote. That's a fairly high percentage for Haley- for so long after Haley dropped out. What does that mean? I don't know. Except I do think that it's going to be a close election. I don't see any landslides for anybody.

In an honest, above board election, I see a landslide for Trump.

Those 22% who voted for Haley; do you see most of them voting for Biden?

Nope. Hell no.

And here is news for you- many "Independents" and Democrats are dissatisfied with Biden and will vote for Trump, based on two issues: the economy and the Border. IMO, Trump can pull in 20-25% (or more) of the black vote, something that has never been done in Republican politics.

The Dems are sweating bullets, they know they are running a horse that has a broken leg.

It means nothing and is completely irrelevant.

And the only way this election is close is via massive voter fraud and election interference.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

And the only way this election is close is via massive voter fraud and election interference.

BUCKLE UP!!!!! We haven’t seen anything yet.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...the-defense-n2638747

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has charged Trump with falsifying bookkeeping records of a nondisclosure payment in order to commit or conceal another crime, Bragg still hasn’t revealed what that other crime is. It’s really the key to the whole case. Without the other crime, there would be no charges against Trump in this matter. The fact that we — and that includes the defendant — still don’t know what the other crime is is one of the great injustices of a felony prosecution that never should have happened...[Bragg's] theory is that if Michael Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 in the fall of 2016 to keep her from going public with her story that she and Trump had a sexual encounter and then Trump repaid Cohen in 2017, then that was a campaign contribution and should have been reported to the FEC. The payments were made “for the purpose of influencing any election,” the theory continues, and the Trump campaign should have filed a document with the FEC listing among its campaign contributions and expenditures that it received and spent $130,000 for “hush money.”

If you think that sounds a little odd for an FEC disclosure, you’re right. That’s where one of the critical witnesses to be called by the Trump defense comes in. Bradley Smith is a former chairman of the FEC, and on many occasions, including long before Trump, he has argued that there are all sorts of things a candidate can spend money on that are not legally classifiable as “for the purpose of influencing any election.” ... Smith, having headed the FEC, has many examples from the commission’s enforcement of federal election law that illustrate his point. He knows what he is talking about, and it seems clear that his expert opinion is that paying off Daniels, no matter what one might think of it, is not a campaign expenditure or donation that FECA requires a candidate to disclose. The Trump defense plans to call Smith as a witness. Not because he has any personal knowledge of the Trump transaction but because he understands, and has enforced, the campaign law that Bragg’s prosecutors appear to be planning to use against Trump.

But Merchan has forbidden Smith from testifying about most of the issues involved in the case.

Among the things Smith might be able to testify about is the novelty of the current Trump prosecution. Merchan will not allow it. “Defendant seeks to elicit from Smith, among other things, that at the time Cohen paid Daniels, there had never been a case in which anyone had been convicted of a federal campaign finance law violation for the making of ‘hush money payments,'” Merchan wrote. Smith might also be asked about “the facts surrounding the trial of former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John Edwards, his subsequent acquittal, and that the case was heavily criticized.”

Merchan will not allow it.

Other things Smith might be able to testify about are the FEC’s decision to dismiss a complaint against Trump for this very matter and the Justice Department’s decision not to prosecute Trump for the same set of actions. But Merchan said Smith cannot say a word about those matters. “That the FEC dismissed the complaint against defendant and the DOJ decided against prosecuting defendant for potential FECA violations are probative of nothing,” Merchan wrote on March 18. “These matters are therefore irrelevant and defendant is precluded from eliciting testimony or introducing evidence or both.” So Smith can talk about none of that. None of it.

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
And the only way this election is close is via massive voter fraud and election interference.

I keep on reading posts indicating that Trump is going to win in a landslide - unless there is massive fraud. We all look at the political situation based upon the information available to us and our own experiences. I come to the opinion that it's going to be a close election based upon what I read and what I hear from others. I have a son who lives in PA. He tells me he saw Trump signs everywhere (in his very Republican county) in the last two elections. So far this year the only two lawn signs he has seen are two Nicki Halley signs that are still being displayed today. They have not been replaced by Trump signs. He hasn't seen any Trump signs at all. His neighbor is in law enforcement. He says he won't be voting for Biden, but he is not voting for Trump either. He can't support a guy who is OK with pardoning people who beat the shit out of cops. So based on what I hear and read, and the anecdotes I hear, I think it's going to be close. So I am interested in knowing on what basis some are saying it's going to be a landslide. We all tend to associate with people who think like ourselves. So our opinions tend to get reinforced by those around us who already think like us. I don't read anywhere that it's going to be a landslide. Day to day the polls change, but right now in most (not all) battleground states, Trump has a lead, but usually within the margin of error. To be clear, I will be casting a vote for Trump. I am not posing the question with any anti-Trump bias. Just as an aside, I think that many think Trump will win in a landslide - because how could anybody with an ounce of sense vote for and ass hole like Biden. But I am well aware that many people have a major dislike for Trump that may cause some to vote for Biden anyway. So what is the basis of your belief that Trump will win in a landslide?

quote:

Those 22% who voted for Haley; do you see most of them voting for Biden?

It's a statement vote, people who don't like DJT, so they are flipping the process a bird.

Most likely are not going to hold their noses and vote for DJT even if it means 4 more years of Dementia Joe, Ukraine War, High Fuel Prices.

My brother is one of them, conservative, Republican, can't stand DJT thinks he is the worst thing for the party, all the BS, Court Trials, loud, brash comments, crude, misogynistic, he's bought all the hype about the bad DJT so that outweighs a horrible Biden.

He won't vote for Joe, but he won't vote for DJT and I think there are millions like him out there, I know several who just want all the political BS to go away. You can't explain to them how even if you don't like the guy, he's exposing the machine behind the curtain on the corruption in DC.

These folks just are not that into politics, and you can call them whatever names we want, but the fact is, both sides, and the middle there are millions who can't stand DJT, ie Nikki Haily voters for a candidate who isn't on the ballot.

Edited because for some reason the post locked up and wouldn't let me finish it.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

quote:

Those 22% who voted for Haley; do you see most of them voting for Biden?

It's a statement vote, people who don't like DJT, so they are flipping the process a bird.

Most likely are not going to hold their noses and vote for DJT even if it means 4 more years of Dementia Joe, Ukraine War, High Fuel Prices.

My brother is one of them, conservative, Republican, can't stand DJT thinks he is the worst thing for the party, all the BS, Court Trials, loud, brash comments, crude, misogynistic, he's bought all the hype about the bad DJT so that outweighs a horrible Biden.

He won't vote for Joe, but he won't vote for DJT and I think there are millions like him out there, I know several who just want all the political BS to go away. You can't explain to them how even if you don't like the guy, he's exposing the machine behind the curtain on the corruption in DC.

These folks just are not that into politics, and you can call them whatever names we want, but the fact is, both sides, and the middle there are millions who can't stand DJT, ie Nikki Haily voters for a candidate who

Well said. I agree completely. The abortion issue is not going to help Trump. Add to that you've got the idiot Marjorie Taylor Greene who is doing great damage to the Republican brand as a whole. That doesn't help. Do I think Trump can win? Yes. Is it going to be a landslide? Not a chance.

Based on what we saw in the 2020 election....regarding ballot box stuffing, shady court rulings, ballots trucked across state lines, etc....Do you think Pres Trump really won? By how many votes? And Biden got how many votes? Remember Pres Trump's rallies? Remember Biden's? If everything is on the up and up this year, I'm going for the landslide win. We will see.