Verdict

[moke123]

Is there a guide for labeling payments that all politicians/businesses use

Yes, the tax code. If I buy a car from an attorney can I deduct it as a legal expense?

Soon, maybe a week or two? And yes, he can still run. The question remains how it will affect voters in the swing states: positive or negative.

July 11th is sentencing.

 

[Steve R.]

It is difficult because you are damned if you do, or damned if you don't. If you also play unfair, you contribute to the demise of sanity and established legal protocol. If you don't, you can end up on the losing side while the democrats cheat the system. Ultimately, the democrats are bringing about the demise of society, and it is a difficult one for the republicans to know if they should play fair or dirty, because both options have their own problems.

As a sidebar. Democrats act unethically and go fanatically for the jugular. But in doing their frenzied lawfare, they neglect that they are opening a Pandora's box of potential repercussions. Democrats, in their crazed Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) have undermined historical concepts and norms, such as: the attorney client privilege, executive privilege, presidential immunity, and the rule-of-law. All to get Trump. Unfortunately, as @AccessBlaster and others have pointed out, Republicans lack the backbone to stop the abusive unethical tactics of the Democrats.

 

[Steve R.]

Yes, the tax code. If I buy a car from an attorney can I deduct it as a legal expense?

Well what should Trump have labelled, in the accounting ledgers, the legal expense for the NDA (non-disclosure agreement)?

 

[Steve R.]

But, they don't ever bother to read the Constitution, let alone believe in it or understand it so they don't even know that things specified in the Constitution can only be changed with an amendment, not by some stupid lacky "passing a law" in Congress.

For Democrats the Constitution is an impediment.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Yes, the tax code. If I buy a car from an attorney can I deduct it as a legal expense?

So what kind of label should he should have used in your expert opinion?

 

[AccessBlaster]

It's funny when judge Alito's wife flies a flag, the dems go bizerk saying the judge is conflicted. But if the Trump judge makes contributions to Biden and supports a "get Trump organization" that's somehow OK.

 

[Mike Krailo]

You don't buy an NDA agreement's like you are purchasing a car, that's something you work out with your legal department for any business and they are legal expenses. If your business was getting sued or harassed, you pay your lawyer to take care of it and it ends up being a legal expense. If we were to look into exact details in to every tax return in America, how many times would you see the label as "legal expense"? There is no inherent unethical thing in labeling a legal expense as nothing else other than legal expense. Again who is defrauded by this label? Look at any other case involving falsifying business records and you see there is always someone that purposely altering records for financial fraud or gain and it directly impacts an individual or an company or possibly the State monetarily (money lost or stolen). In this case there is no victim or no crime unless you use you imagination to make one up.

 

[Mike Krailo]

For any of you legal geniuses out there, please explain who exactly was prevented from being elected by labeling payments as legal expenses? These are internal personal records we are talking about and nobody elses business. It neither prevents or promotes anything.

Section 17-152 - Conspiracy to promote or prevent election
Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-152

 

[Steve R.]

 

[Isaac]

page 40



the law



He was never charged with a misdemeanor.

the crime that supposedly elevates it is interfering in an election - which is ridiculous, as this hushed story was just one of many hushed stories that rich people routinely pay to keep quiet - it wasn't interfering in an election

 

[Jon]

You don't buy an NDA agreement's like you are purchasing a car, that's something you work out with your legal department for any business and they are legal expenses. If your business was getting sued or harassed, you pay your lawyer to take care of it and it ends up being a legal expense.

Legal expensive is a generic umbrella term, just like admin. If your lawyer is setting up a company for you, then do you have to put in "setting up company" or legal expense? Taking care of an NDA is surely a legal expense. But despite all this, there is nothing except the word of Cohen to say that his retainer money was a hush money payment.

 

[Jon]

Trump goes out to buy a nice suit so he looks presentable and influences voter perception. Is that trying to influence an election and so a campaign violation because you did not record that expense?

 

[AccessBlaster]

the crime that supposedly elevates it is interfering in an election - which is ridiculous

Wasn't the election over before Trump supposedly interfered?

 

[Jon]

I don't think what Trump actually did matters at all. If you have 12 angry democrats who get a once in a lifetime opportunity to convict Trump, they will jump at it. Just look at the January 6th property break-in. They escalate that to an insurrection. Really quite ludicrous. And then they say Trump did it! The dems ignore that he said protest peacefully. Instead, they focus on figures of speech like, "Fight like hell!", which the dems use themselves, as shown during the impeachment hearing by the republican defense.

They always argue that words matter. If they do, why do they ignore them when it doesn't suit them?

Edit: Didn't the FBI say there was a plot from the Proud Boys to invade the Capitol building way before the protest happened? If so, how can they then try to pin this on Trump?

 

[Steve R.]

Edit: Didn't the FBI say there was a plot from the Proud Boys to invade the Capitol building way before the protest happened? If so, how can they then try to pin this on Trump?

Currently, rampant antisemitism is sweeping across this country and the world. Yet, Biden falsely sticks to his pet whipping dogma that it is White supremacy that is the threat to democracy. It is actually the radical left, endorsed by Biden, that is the threat to democracy.

 

[MarkK]

It is actually the radical left, endorsed by Biden, that is the threat to democracy.

Democracy is the belief that if all voices are heard, and issues are debated openly and fairly, that the majority of people will make the best choice.

In this regard, if you do not see your opponents, and those with whom you disagree, as being an essential part of what democracy requires, then you are a threat to democracy.

 

[MarkK]

Currently, rampant antisemitism is sweeping across this country and the world.

Because there was no antisemitism in, say, 1943? Antisemitism is a fixture in the world and in history. There is no "sweeping."

 

[AngelSpeaks]

so when does sentencing begin? and can he still run for president or not?

Yes.

 

[moke123]

Legal expensive is a generic umbrella term, just like admin. If your lawyer is setting up a company for you, then do you have to put in "setting up company" or legal expense? Taking care of an NDA is surely a legal expense. But despite all this, there is nothing except the word of Cohen to say that his retainer money was a hush money payment.

here's a link to all the documents used at trial https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/Evidence/

These may be the docs your looking for

 

[Steve R.]

Democracy is the belief that if all voices are heard, and issues are debated openly and fairly, that the majority of people will make the best choice.

In this regard, if you do not see your opponents, and those with whom you disagree, as being an essential part of what democracy requires, then you are a threat to democracy.

Based on your definition, we do not live in a democracy. You must be working for Biden's (Orwellian) Ministry of Information. Conservative voices are shutdown (censored) and the Justice Department uses lawfare for criminalize political opponents. In 2022, Biden Establishes a Ministry of Truth. It is now defunct, but not dead. (PS: Technically we live in a Republic, but that has been slowly eroding.)

Because there was no antisemitism in, say, 1943? Antisemitism is a fixture in the world and in history. There is no "sweeping."

Antisemitism has existed for thousands of years. Seems that you are missing that it has been re-emergent. Moreover consider that Biden publicly and zealously promotes divisive anti-White hatred yet when real violence emerges against the Jews emerges he is essentially silent. Biden, for example, has failed to implement civil rights violations against those attacking the Jews. Moreover, Biden also plays word games by cautioning us against (fake) Islamophobia when it is the Jews who are being attacked. Biden has come-out-of-the-closet to be pro-Hamas, pro-Iranian, and anti-Jewish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get Trump: The Threat to Civil... book by Alan Dershowitz

Alan Dershowitz has been called "one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America" by Politico and "the nation's most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights" by Newsweek.

Get Trump makes clear that unconstitutional efforts to stop Trump from retaking the presidency challenge the very foundations of our liberty: due process, right to counsel, and free speech. Those who justify these dangerous departures from the rule of law argue that the threat posed by a second Trump presidency is "different" and "immediate," while the departures from constitutional norms are longer term and more abstract.

Dershowitz explains that defenders of Trump's constitutional rights--even those like him who oppose Trump politically--are sought to be silenced; their free speech rights attacked, their integrity questioned, and their careers threatened. Much of the media substitutes advocacy against Trump for objective reporting, while many in academia petition and propagandize against rights they previously valued--all in the interest of getting Trump.

The essence of justice is that it must be equally applicable to all, Dershowitz notes. No one is above the law but digging to find crimes in order to influence an election does not constitute the equal application of the law. In order to assure equal application in comparable situations, he proposes two criteria for indicting a likely candidate of the opposing party: the Richard Nixon standard and the Hillary Clinton standard--and most recently, the Joe Biden standard.

Get Trump warns that regardless of whether this anti-democratic effort to stop Trump from running succeeds or fails, it is likely to create dangerous precedents that will lie around like loaded weapons ready to be deployed against other controversial candidates, officials, or citizens about whom it can be argued that the danger they pose "is different."