Write NYU lawprofs Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissmann, in "Make No Mistake, the Investigation of Donald Trump and the Stormy Daniels Scheme Is Serious" (NYT).
As a new study co-authored by one of us shows, precedents include charging a teacher for allegedly submitting a fake Covid-19 vaccination card to the New York City Department of Education and her school principal; an auto repair store owner who failed to file proper tax forms, resulting in more than $60,000 in unpaid taxes; and a woman who fraudulently obtained store credit at a Lord & Taylor and then used that credit to purchase several items before she left the store.
While the analogy to Mr. Trump is imperfect, since paying hush money is not itself illegal, in his case the false “legal fee” records appear to have furthered and covered up New York state tax fraud (the false Cohen tax filings) and the failure to report Trump campaign contributions....
पोस्ट्स
१०८ टिप्पण्या:
I would have thought that it would be a federal crime, it one at all...
But Hillary can pay for the Steele dossier and list it as 'Legal fees.'
Trump should have learned...
If I pay A to perform a service for me, and record that fact, and later on A claims that he didn't perform that service but instead had done something else for the money -- have I filed a false business record?
Apparently, this is the same Andrew Weissman who ran Mueller's phony baloney Russiagate investigation.
We can interpret the headline as meaning that the charges aren't serious, but the consequences may be.
Is this the same Andrew Weissmann who caused the death of the huge 100+ year old accounting firm Arthur Andersen, by his crooked, fact withholding charges against the firm and it's leaders in the Enron case? People's lives were destroyed, innocent people jailed, the firm destroyed, 30,000 or so employees sent out into the streets. And...a couple of years later, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decisions that came from Weissmann's tactics. Lives ruined. A prestigious company with a long history, gone.
This same Weissmann followed it up by running Robert Mueller's fake investigation into the Fake Russia Collusion case. And in a similar vein, he withheld evidence and information. It seems to be his 'niche'. That case, as we know, stuck onto Trump, even though, as it turns out, it was all from Hillary, the FBI, and the DoJ.
So, now he gets to teach classes to young minds already desiring to put conservatives in jail. Swell.
You'll pardon me if I don't give his opinions much credence.
"NYU lawprof" Andy Weissmann. Look, his analysis might be right, but former AUSA Weissman was also one of the most rabid anti-Trump partisans in the Mueller investigation, and afterwards was angry and bitter that Mueller ended up deciding not to pursue charges against Trump. He's an experienced prosecutor, yes, but so was Rudy Giuliani. I wouldn't consider him a dispassionate, non-partisan commentator here.
If not for Hunter and Joe this charge would never have happened. This is 1/1,000th of the Biden's slime, and is meant to inoculate against the coming anti-Biden storm.
This is such ridiculous talmudic nonsense as begger belief. First, who was harmed by this? No one. How did Trump benefit? He didn't. Trump just wanted the porn star to sign an NDA and pay her some money. what's wrong with that? Happens all the time in business and Hollywood. There is no tax fraud. The State of NY wasn't injured. And I doubt Trump knew or cared about all the legal technicalities and mumbo jumbo.
This is absurdly political. A DA looking for a crime to charge Trump with. We have a weaponized leftwing legal system that is being used to destroy anyone they dislike. Anyone they like, can get zero bail or not be charged for the most obvious crimes. Anyone they dislike can be jailed and destroyed over a technicality.
BTW, this also came about because Trump has a weakness for "Smart People" especially elite college grads as his subordinates, assitants and legal counsel. He constantly surrounds himself with people who have no loyalty to him and assumes they will act right and or grateful for the $$ or power.
He's found out that in the political world, loyalty is the most important attribute.
Andrew Weissmann. LOL
Weissmann is one of the main instigators of so much of the witch-hunt against Trump and conservatives in general. His legal opinion is not worth the time it took for the NYT editors to format and upload this article.
Based on the quote I don't see any precedent: none of the things are related to one another.
Is this 'expert' Saul Goodman?
No, it isn't, as shown by how easily Trump turned the whole thing into a mess with one social media post.
While the analogy to Mr. Trump is imperfect
Heh.
It is very hard to take Weissmann, overturned 9-0 by SCOTUS in his prosecution of Arthur Anderson, seriously.
Do we want Presidential candidates and Presidents to be able to hide paying extortion? The answer No is the strong public policy in favor of prosecuting this crime. The elements of the crime will have to be proved, and there may be a legal question as to whether the federal crimes admitted by Michael Cohen fit the bill to make this state crime a felony. Donald Trump can raise his defenses in court.
Now do Hilary!
What's sad is that today's Stanford law students are tomorrow's Alvin Braggs and Tish James.
On the bright side, shortsighted Alvin appears to be afflicted with same disease that struck Harry Reid (D-Filibuster Expert). That is, just like Reid eliminating the filibuster for judges, Alvin thinks his ill-fated gambit will never come back to haunt the Commie-Pinkos politicians on the other side.
A few questions...
What is "the Trump Organization"? Is it Trump as a business entity or his Campaign Organization?
Mr. Cohen is a lawyer. His fees are for his legal work. I understand color of money, but I don't understand how Mr. Cohen choosing not to report his legal fees from a retainer is overcome by receiving legal fees from another retainer? I also don't understand how Mr. Cohen's tax fraud proves or even suggests no retainer existed?
I'll admit, I read the documents presented by Ms. Daniels and her lawyer that suggested a NDA between Mr. Trump and Mr. Daniels, but the documentation was shoddy with the document identify the real names of the agreeing parties amending the wrong paragraph of the filed NDA. That's one of many reasons why no NDA ever seemed to exist. Is there similar shoddy documentation by Mr. Cohen in his retainer contract that nullifies its existence? If Mr. Cohen is the legal representative of Mr. Trump or his Organization, which one is responsible for properly creating the contract for legal services?
Finally, Mr. Goodman and Mr. Weissmann, can you provide the number of times falsifying business records was a felony related to campaign contributions?
If you’re explaining, you’re losing. What a pathetic argument.
Meanwhile, China and Ukraine are paying millions of dollars to the Biden crime syndicate.
The "false Cohen tax filings"? Does this mean that Trump reimbursed Cohen for income taxes (on the legal fees that went to Daniels) that Cohen did not pay? How is Trump legally accountable for that?
As for the failure to report the payment as campaign contribution, that is a joke. Obama's campaign and Hillary's campaign were fined for far greater failures to report, no one was prosecuted.
I don't think I've ever heard of a criminal charge for overstating your taxes. Did Mr. Cohen file for a refund when his overstatement was exposed? Did Ms Daniels report and pay taxes on her NY source income?
Now do Joe Biden and the reporting or covering up of payments to the Biden family from China…
In fact, do every politician in DC…
Not political my ass….
Hmmm. Where have I heard the name Andrew Weissmann before? Now I have it! He was the lead prosecutor in the Mueller investigation, where he used a LawFare created misinterpretation of an Obstruction statute to hound Trump and his Administration, with perjury traps (having effectively written the materiality requirement out of the statute) until AG Barr took office, and forced those prosecutors to follow DOJ regulations and OLC legal interpretations. He apparently helped Benjamin Weiss, head of the Brookings Institute funded LawFare blog develop this misinterpretation. How did this work? Take the case of Gen Flynn, Trump’s first NSA. The FBI (probably illegally) obtained a transcript of Flynn’s phone conversation with the Russian Ambassador. They then had two FBI agents (from the infamous Counterintelligence Division) interview Flynn. They had the transcript. He did not. They then prosecuted him for his apparent deviations from the transcript. Except that those deviations could not be material to any investigation, since they knew beforehand exactly what was said in the conversation (and he, talking to dozens of top foreign officials every day in the early Trump Administration, couldn’t precisely remember every detail). That is why Weiss and Weissman misinterpreted the Obstruction statute to read out of it it’s materiality requirement - so that they could have a general purpose giving inaccurate information to federal investigators, no matter how important, to use against Trump. Yes, that Andrew Weissmann.
So Cohen (an attorney) performed an illegal act that would solely benefit him by reducing his taxes?
IF that was the arrangement, did Cohen notify his client, that it would be an illegal act? Any documents supporting that notification?
If an attorney advises a client to perform an illegal act, that is not obviously illegal to a non-lawyer, is the client responsible for detrimentally relying on the attorney's malpractice?
Short on liquidity? What was the motive? More than 28 trimesters later, why NOW?
Is this the same Andrew Weissman who was on Mueller's pack of wolves who tried, but couldn't make anything stick to Trump? Why should anyone believe anything he says about Trump?
This is how you get Banana Republic status. Goose/gander blindness strikes Democrats again. These are not serious adults. Petulant children with no ability to see past 20 minutes ahead.
"The crime is a clear felony if it is done with intent to aid or cover up another crime and otherwise is a misdemeanor."
Translated from Russia, "Find the man. I'll find the crime."
If you have to explain how serious a charge is through the writings of a very biased attorney, you might not have much of a prosecutable case.
Making up stuff as they go along. This could be an outline for a Mel Brooks skit if it wasn't so serious.
this just warmup Fanni GETS THE BIG fanny. Smelling RICO the CEO of the criminal trump organization just needed 11780 votes c'mon fellas give him a break! May offer a wagering opportunity down the road. More to be revealed
Of course Wiessmann was hired and made head of the Russiagate investigation by Robert Mueller - The most honorable, straight-shooter in DC.
A war hero. A marine. Mr. FBI. And a complete fraud. And Deep state insider.
Remember how we were constantly assured by Rod Rosenstein, BoB woodward, the MSM, and Andrew McCarthy, that we could trust Bob Mueller, "the most honorable man in Washington DC", to conduct a fair impartial investigation?
LOL!
nnamssieW werdnA.
Weissmann should be even more famous than he is already. Has any other lawyer been reversed 9-0 by the Supreme Court?
"Make No Mistake, the Investigation of Donald Trump and the Stormy Daniels Scheme Is Serious" (NYT)
It is serious. The destruction of the Rule of Law is serious.
Anyone who supports this is evil. They are my enemy. As far as I am concerned this is existential.
"I've got to spend my time on issues that actually matter to people," DeSantis said Monday. "I can't spend my time worrying about things or things of that nature. So so we're not going to be involved in it in any way."
Desantis is dead to me.
Further thoughts on my previous comment. Note what Andrew Weissmann, et Al, are doing here. They have effectively read both intent and materiality out of the statute. It’s pure LawFare all the way. I am just surprised that Benjamin Weiss didn’t have his name on the article too. The Feds wouldn’t touch this with a 10 foot pole, because then they would have to explain why they haven’t indicted half of Congress for similar (but typically opposite) Campaign Finance violations. Almost always, Campaign Finance violations involve using someone else’s political contributions for personal use. Here, it was Trump, who provided significant self funding to his campaign, spending personal money to allegedly advance his election. No fine would have been due, since you can spend as much of your own money, as you like, doing just that. That pesky 1st Amdt again. At worst, they would have let him file a revised disclosure form. But likely not even that - they have much bigger fish to fry, like entire families of politicians living off of their campaign contributions, mansions, private plane travel, etc.
Was the alleged misfiling material? No - it was his money, and he was self financing part of his election anyway. If it was a campaign expense or a personal expense didn’t matter one bit - it was all his money to start with. And how the heck are they going to show that he knew that the hush money should have been treated as a campaign expense, instead of a legal expense, when he paid the bill sent him by his (then) attorney? Heck, if anyone is at fault here, it was very likely his attorney who sent the hush money payout as part of a legal bill he, being the attorney, is the one who should have known better - he was the attorney, and that’s what they are there for. So, how do they prove intent and materiality beyond a reasonable doubt? You don’t. Instead Andrew Weissmann, et all would just pretend away the materiality and intent requirements of both the alleged filing false tax return charge, and the underlying Campaign Finance charges.
Show me the man, I'll show you the crime.
Lavrentiy Beria
American Pubic: Is this the movement that published the false dossier? Who spent taxpayer money on a ridiculous investigation by Mueller?
Andrew Weissmann: Yes, sir.
American Pubic: Who lured Peloosi into a gross dereliction of duty at two impeachment votes?
Nancy Pelosi: Uh, it's Pelosi, sir.
Andrew Weissmann: Yes, sir.
American Pubic: Is this the movement that invited the J6 protests into the Capitol so you could charge them with treason?
Andrew Weissmann: Yes, sir.
American Pubic: I just bet that you are the pride of your get out the vote effort in Detroit.
It is remarkable to see the target of an extortion being charged for paying the extorter. This is only a crime if what is being covered up is a crime itself. Sleeping with a porn star isn't a crime. Paying her to keep quiet about it isn't a crime. Paying the lawyer extra to keep quiet about it also isn't a crime. I am struggling to see where the illegality occurs here. Weissman appears to be resting all of this on the idea that the payment itself was a campaign contribution by Trump to his own campaign that wasn't reported. If this is a crime at all, it is a federal crime, not a New York state crime.
Any judge with any ethics whatsoever will dismiss this case at arraignment, but we already know there aren't any such judges in New York.
I haven’t read comments yet, but if it hasn’t already been said, Andrew Weissman is a lying, malevolent sack of human excrement.
In a just world, he’d be behind bars.
Left Bank:
Are you really in favor of prosecutors charging “crimes” of questionable legal merit on “public policy” grounds?
Think carefully about that.
Okay… I see I’m late to the party. Weissman’s reputation precedes him.
"Do we want Presidential candidates and Presidents to be able to hide paying extortion?"
Show me a single case where anyone was prosecuted for paying an extorter when the underlying act was itself completely legal, Left Bank. If you pay an ex-girlfriend to not talk publicly about how you like a buttplug in your ass, is it a crime? Does it become a crime when you are running to head Animal Control? Does it become a crime when when you run for President.
Your's and Weismann's argument is fucking nonsense.
A jury swiftly acquitted John Edwards of a similar charge.
Weismann had a lot of convictions he secured overturned.
He’s an underling. Cried when Hillary lost.
Left Back on the Charles said...
"Do we want Presidential candidates and Presidents to be able to hide paying extortion?"
************************
Wanna explain what "paying extortion" means? Are you suggesting Stormy was committing extortion, and Trump committed a crime by paying it? Are you really saying that paying "hush money" is illegal?
You've got the situation hopelessly bass ackwards, chump.
Left Bank of the Charles: "Do we want Presidential candidates and Presidents to be able to hide paying extortion?"
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
There is no "bottom" for Left Bank.
And before LLR-democratical and Violent Homosexual Rape Fantasist Chuck asks: no, not THAT kind of a "bottom".
How do they plan to get around the statute of limitations issue? For a misdemeanor in NY it's 1 year, and for a felony its 5 years. This all happened over 5 years ago, didn't it?
I've heard (on Twitter) that they plan to argue that the clock stopped because Trump was no longer a resident of New York having taken up residence in the White House. But that certainly can't be the case, or statute of limitations wouldn't exist for anyone. I can just imagine people sending out arrest notices to tourists for jaywalking offenses 20 years ago. Sorry you don't live in NY anymore so the clock stopped!
Okay, this is all about deals being made.
How about we give them Donald Trump being put in jail for Hillary and Joe Biden. I think that's a fair deal and would save both political sides a lot of bother and clear the way for others.
Given the amount of outrage Trump brings, I think Biden and Clinton would equal his value.
That's the country's best offer.
Hugo Gordon gets it even if Ron DeSantis' team of DC Insiders does not.
"I think he’s too focused on tactics, and not enough on strategy, here. Part of this is sending a message to anyone else who might challenge the Establishment, that all rules and norms will be cast aside to punish you in every way possible, even if — as with Trump — it involves perverting and discrediting the entire system, as it has done here. In fact the willingness to openly pervert and discredit the entire system is itself a declaration of power. “We don’t care about what you and the voting public think, because we don’t have to care.”
Too bad DeSantis couldn't see past his advisors dumb poll-tested and wiffle-waffled messaging strategies.
Could be the beginning of another Scott Walker-type campaign implosion if DeSantis doesn't start exerting more independence from the consultants that his funders demand he use.
Seems the alleged false tax filing would be on Cohen. I'm sure Trump didn't sign his return.
Hillary's 2016 campaign filed fraudulent condiments, claiming that the were making legal payments, when they were actually paying for the Steele trash and laundering it through their law firm.
Let me know when she gets charged for that, it being in the exact same campaign where Trump's supposed "crimes" took place
Write NYU lawprofs Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissmann
Would that be the Andrew Weissmann who's fantasies for charging Trump were so ludicrous that Bill Barr completely shut him down?
Why yes, it would be
Which tells us that NYU Law is trash
Similarly, to keep the Daniels payments secret, neither Mr. Trump nor his campaign would report the payments as a campaign contribution by either Mr. Cohen or Mr. Trump."
That's because they weren't a campaign contribution
Or if they were, then every single FBI dweeb working on "Crossfire hurricane" is a criminal who failed to failed to report their "campaign contributions" to the Clinton and Biden campaigns for all the corrupt work they did fighting Trump.
Heck, this op-ed is clearly a campaign contribution to the Biden 2024 re-election campaign. better report to!
What's that? Not everything that might help a campaign counts as a campaign contribution? No shit, Sherlock!
precedents include charging a teacher for allegedly submitting a fake Covid-19 vaccination card to the New York City Department of Education and her school principal;
Which would be lying about a (illegitimate) job requirement
an auto repair store owner who failed to file proper tax forms, resulting in more than $60,000 in unpaid taxes
And not paying your taxes is against the law. I do so hope that every single person in the Bragg DA office is up to date on their taxes
and a woman who fraudulently obtained store credit at a Lord & Taylor and then used that credit to purchase several items before she left the store.
Also known as theft
Or did she pay off the credit card?
While the analogy to Mr. Trump is imperfect, since paying hush money is not itself illegal, in his case the false “legal fee” records appear to have furthered and covered up New York state tax fraud
They just said above that the payments to Cohen were made bigger so that he could report them and pay all taxes on them. Which would be the diametric OPPOSITE of "tax fraud"
the failure to report Trump campaign contributions....
If that's a "campaign contributions", then so is this op-ed, as I said. So let's be sure to send these weasels to jail for failing to report it
"Do we want Presidential candidates and Presidents to be able to hide paying extortion?"
We had this discussion in the 90's about lying under oath.
Your side said it shouldn't matter.
Brian: "How do they plan to get around the statute of limitations issue?"
In the very same way they get around every other issue: They will argue "Trump!!"...and it will work in every blue jurisdiction and whenever/if ever it gets before John Roberts.
And will be closely followed by all the usual GOPe suspects blaming Trump for the actions of the radicalized left/dems because that is de rigueur now.
"We had this discussion in the 90's about lying under oath.
Your side said it shouldn't matter."
Well, to be fair, they said it shouldn't matter because it was "just about sex".
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Do we want Presidential candidates and Presidents to be able to hide paying extortion? The answer No is the strong public policy in favor of prosecuting this crime. The elements of the crime will have to be proved, and there may be a legal question as to whether the federal crimes admitted by Michael Cohen fit the bill to make this state crime a felony. Donald Trump can raise his defenses in court.
Meanwhile this person supports a President who is being paid millions of dollars by Communist China.
This is indefensible.
These people re openly embracing the worst tactics of the Cultural revolution and the Soviet regime.
It is time to ship these shitheads to countries that have imposed their policies and desires on their people.
Left Bank belongs in China, not in a free country where people died for the freedom he is trying to destroy.
I can find a listing for Ryan Goodman at the NYU law website, but no entry for Andrew Weissman.
Under NY law, falsifying a business record is a misdemeanor (Penal Law § 175.05) subject to a 2-year statute of limitations (CPL § 30.10(2)(a)). That date is long past. So they have to charge it as a felony under Penal Law § 175.10, which requires (i) Trump made or caused to be made a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; (ii) with intent to defraud; and (iii) "when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."
Proving the first two elements seems quite a stretch. Presumably they have either something directly from Trump (unlikely) or testimony by Cohen (my guess) to show that Trump directed someone to record the payment as legal fees. Less clear what the proof of "intent to defraud" will be, and even less clear what the additional crime for the third element will be. Speculation assumes that the prosecutors will point to federal campaign law to establish the additional crime required by third element, even though there is no prior case in which a federal violation was deemed sufficient for this purpose. But perhaps they will try to use some tax crime instead (assuming that they can show that listing it as legal fees was intended to falsely claim that a non-deductible personal expense was a deductible business expense). Whatever they will point to for the additional crime required by the third element, good luck to them in showing that Trump personally had the required intent -- seems a bit specific for a guy like him, who's not big on details.
Very bizarre.
130 My take once again, is that Trump won in 2020 and should be considered the incumbent and not have to worry about a primary. The fact that so many people are dipping their toes in to run has pissed Trump off, and in Trump like fashion he lashes out. I like DeSantis, but the fact that he's considering to run tells me he either doesn't care that our election was stolen, or doesn't think it was actually stolen. There is no reason if he is truly a Maga like conservative, that he shouldn't have gotten behind trump right off the bat. I don't care if they all think they would make better presidents than Trump. The issue is bigger, it's acknowledging that Trump won, that the election was stolen, that our voices and votes were silenced. It was a cheap shot by DeSantis and he made a mockery of the seriousness of what our country is facing.
Posted by: spypeach
Posted by: Thomas Paine at March 21, 2023 08:12 AM (lTGtQ)
Posted by: Voter theater. at March 21, 2023 08:23 AM (QjAQj)
This is NOT a minority opinion in the real world. Ignore these folks at your peril, RDS.
This is the general sentiment in the comments section at AoS. And Ace is a staunch Desantis supporter.
If Desantis runs in 2024 he is immediately a liar.
Not a good way to start out. He desperately needs to dump his current campaign team of he is going to be the next Scott Walker.
Ha!
Quoting Andrew Weismann on Trump prosecutions is like the New York Times quoting Mike Nifong on Duke rape prosecution
Oh wait, they did!
And how did THAT one turn out?
- Cohen pays Stormy Daniels $130,000. That would qualify as a business expense for Cohen.
- Donald Trump pays Cohen $130,000 to reimburse Cohen for the cost of Stormy Daniels NDA payment.
- Cohen's net on that transaction is $0. How is he liable for income tax on $0?
I don't know how Trump can deduct the $130,000 from his income as a business expense, but I'm just a lowly retired engineer. Maybe a tax lawyer or accountant could explain. At worse, it would be an income tax deduction dispute, which is settled with fines, if any, not criminal prosecution.
Make No Mistake….
Is he giving us his word as a Weissman?
What is it that thing that mouth-breathing dipshits used to chant a their klan rallies? Oh yeah,
lock him up!
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Do we want Presidential candidates and Presidents to be able to hide paying extortion?
Extortion never involves NDA's.
gilbar said...
Now do Hilary!
Serious question….
Have you Done Trump already??? You must have, or you wouldn’t be asking SomeOne ELSE to do BOTH Trump AND Hilary!!
The democrats are hopelessly addicted to Trump.
This is a joke, right? Andrew Weissman?
I read the headline "Make No Mistake, the Investigation of Donald Trump and the Stormy Daniels Scheme Is Serious" … and then I looked at the source (NYT).
Serious?? Right, by whose standards? The New York Times? That's surely the source I turn to for fair, objective, and unbiased information.
Pul-eeze.
They mix state and federal crimes. State charge of covering up only applies to other state crimes, not federal crimes.
How is Trump paying his lawyer fees and stipends to pay a non-disclosure agreement a "campaign contribution"?
Do we even care that a grand jury led by an NY AG against a former president is basically a public spectacle rather than a very secret affair pre-indictment? Or are we all just used to this now?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vX3RT8YPTus
They’ve got him!! By George- they’ve got him this time!!
And this is how Trump wins: no matter how awful he is, his opponents are somehow even worse.
Yancey for the win @12:55 and 1:02. But legal scholars don't care. Law schools don't care. Law students don't care. This is the state of our justice system and there is no recovery from it, IMO.
Mob justice will rule.
Jupiter said...
"We had this discussion in the 90's about lying under oath.
Your side said it shouldn't matter."
Well, to be fair, they said it shouldn't matter because it was "just about sex".
Well, it was actually about perjury while under oath.
Which is actually a felony I believe.
There really is no way to be more amoral or pathetic than to support this persecution.
Has RSFSR Article 58 been implemented here in the States?
Asking for a friend.
Drago said...
Brian: "How do they plan to get around the statute of limitations issue?"
In the very same way they get around every other issue: They will argue "Trump!!"...and it will work in every blue jurisdiction and whenever/if ever it gets before John Roberts.
And will be closely followed by all the usual GOPe suspects blaming Trump for the actions of the radicalized left/dems because that is de rigueur now.
Well, the GOPe candidates "have no interest in getting involved."
"I have real issues in the State of Florida I have to deal with here."
They want the democrats to clear the field for a good little Republican. The destruction of the rule of law just isn't that big a deal to the GOPe.
TreeJoe: "How is Trump paying his lawyer fees and stipends to pay a non-disclosure agreement a "campaign contribution"?"
Because his last name is Trump.
The "law" is easy to understand these days.
Left Bank of the Charles: "Do we want Presidential candidates and Presidents to be able to hide paying extortion?"
iowan2: "Extortion never involves NDA's."
Shhhh!
Left Bank is on a roll. Was it "over" when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Re: MadAsHell:
I can find a listing for Ryan Goodman at the NYU law website, but no entry for Andrew Weissman.
See here:
"Andrew Weissmann is a Professor of Practice with the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law. He served as a lead prosecutor in Robert S. Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office (2017-19) and as Chief of the Fraud Section in the Department of Justice (2015-2019)."
They will argue "Trump!!"...and it will work in every blue jurisdiction
I get it, but even blue jurisdiction judges have to come up with some sort of argument to justify their ruling. I think an indicted presidential candidate in the middle of a presidential campaign is enough of an emergency to expedite the appeal process, and they have to know that every lawyer in the country will be looking at it. Better to just kick it back to the prosecutor and say, yeah you had a case, but you took too long.
Judges don't want to look like a fool, even if it's to get Trump. I suspect its the stopped clock theory, but it would be hard to say that Trump doesn't have a presence in New York, since you know he has a building with his name on it. He's not exactly hard to find.
What is the DA's evidence? The DA is a compromised prosecutor. Cohen is a hostile witness bearing antagonistic fervor. Did Trump pay for a settlement or legal fee?
Richard Dolan @ 2:16: thanks, very useful analysis. It does look as if the only predicate "crime" (element (iii) under NY Penal Law 175.10) would be tax fraud (characterizing a personal, non-deductible, expense as a business, deductible, expense). But even that looks awfully speculative: I can't imagine what DJT's tax returns look like and whether he could have taken (and did take) an improper deduction for "legal fees."
And even if you can get through all that stuff, you are left --as you say-- with the problem of showing specific intent. What would clinch that? How about a tape (with impeccable chain of title and absolutely compelling proof of the identity of those being recorded) where DJT declares to his attorney, "I know I will need to disclose all my books and records to the voters or they will not vote for me; AND I know that if I disclose the actual purpose of the payment, the voters will spurn me; AND I really really want and need the business deduction on the payment; so let's do it this way..." Yeah, that's pretty likely.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/penal-law/pen-sect-175-35/
I think this might be the law they are saying he broke.
But it depends on having submitted the false info or record to someone. Like a bank or the tax office or perhaps someone he was doing business with.
Who did trump submit the misclassifiefd info too?
And I am not even willing to accept that it was misclassifiefd. I think a strong case could be made that it was a legal expense. It would be a matter for a court to decide.
John Henry
“Weissman appears to be resting all of this on the idea that the payment itself was a campaign contribution by Trump to his own campaign that wasn't reported. If this is a crime at all, it is a federal crime, not a New York state crime.”
It very likely was not a federal crime, in the first place. If it had been one, it was, at worst, a misdemeanor. The statute of limitations has run on it. And NY state can’t try Trump on a federal Campaign Finance violation in any case.
So if Trump paid Cohen and Cohen paid Stormy with said money, then that's a campaign contribution to Trump?
It's crazy how much America is divided. This is bullshit.
Such bullshit, DeSantis can wait. He's a good man.
Donald Trump in my lifetime is the only person I've seen that has taken on our corrupt establishment and never backed down.
I'm embarrassed having supported Bush-Cheney and the Iraq war. Burned once, and it caused the unnecessary deaths of hundreds or thousands of Iraqis and thousands of US soldiers.
"Now do Hilary!"
Bill doesn't even do Hillary, why should anyone else?
I don't get college educated white women. Fuck Marilyn Monroe, Angie Dickenson, and a 19-year old college student...get taken out by the CIA, you're a hero. Fuck Paula Jones, get blown by Monica Lewinsky in the Oval office during a gov't shutdown, travel to Epstein's Island more than anyone...and you're still a hero.
When it comes to the Clintons, they'll even vote for the wife that allowed it to happen. Hillary was glad someone else was taking care of Bill.
But...you fuck Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal...they hate you, and want you arrested. And they REALLY hate you're smokin' hot wife you made First Lady.
I can only assume it's ok for male Democrat Presidents to get their rocks off because they pretend to support women's rights.
Weird dynamic. Maybe it's why liberal women are the ones taking their kids to drag queen shows, and trying to destroy masculinity.
So if one of the arguments is that the clock stopped because Trump lived in the WH and was NOT a resident of NY shouldn’t he be prosecuted for voting illegally in NY while has was President?
So if one of the arguments is that the clock stopped because Trump lived in the WH and was NOT a resident of NY shouldn’t he be prosecuted for voting illegally in NY while has was President?
No because NY state and NYC don't care if you are a foreigner or an out-of-state resident & you vote. No one gets prosecuted for voting from out-of-state.
No one. Dead people vote too. And dogs and little kids.
That's the way liberal/leftists like it.
"Judges don't want to look like a fool, even if it's to get Trump."
Leftwing Judges want to achieve the leftwing agenda. They don't care how it "looks".
Make no mistake, the persecution of Donald J. Trump is pure political persecution. That shows how corrupt our country has become. PERIOD.
“Hillary's 2016 campaign filed fraudulent condiments…”
I bet that Pantsuited Pantload kept all teh top shelf Grey poupon for #herfatself
Weird dynamic. Maybe it's why liberal women are the ones taking their kids to drag queen shows, and trying to destroy masculinity.
I've seen a good argument that the defense of Bill broke progressive women and modern feminism. Much of the insanity that has followed as been because they've tried to reconcile supposed feminist principles with that decision.
I'd argue that it also explains the madness over Trump: Hillary's presidency was the payoff for defending Bill. They stood by him, and the Dems would make her the first woman president. Instead, Trump took that away from them.
The DA should charge himself for making an illegal contribution to Trump’s 2024 election campaign! This prosecution might be the single biggest campaign contribution Trump gets.
Blogger Brian said...
They will argue "Trump!!"...and it will work in every blue jurisdiction
I get it, but even blue jurisdiction judges have to come up with some sort of argument to justify their ruling.
Ask Michael Flynn about that.
Blogger TeaBagHag said...
What is it that thing that mouth-breathing dipshits used to chant a their klan rallies? Oh yeah,
lock him up!
No, It was Democrats forever ! They were all Democrats or are you that stupid?
I recall a certain sexual seducer of his teenage White House employee and lied about it under oath in a civil case was acquitted and excused by public opinion.
The reason he was acquitted for Perjury was simple. EVERYBODY LIES ABOUT SEX.
SWEET OLD BILL will also never face charges for Epstein’s underage sex workers because it’s like the JFK killing in Dallas. He is immune because everybody gets away with CIA controlled operations.
“Weismann was persona non grata after getting reversed 9-0 and Mueller rescued him off the trash heap by naming him Special Counsel to the Director before naming him Gen. Counsel. Set all the wheels in motion for what came over the next 8 years.”
—- Shipwreckedcrew
I would think any NY judge would love that notch on his belt...to have sentenced the hated Donald Trump to some time in the slammer.
I'd argue that it also explains the madness over Trump: Hillary's presidency was the payoff for defending Bill. They stood by him, and the Dems would make her the first woman president. Instead, Trump took that away from them.
I like that argument. It's ironic too in that Trump is as much of a tomcat as Bill was.
Ann, I would think you of all people would have had an interest in protecting the reputation of your former profession by outing Andrew Weissman in proper context.
You should have qualified Andrew Weissman as a celebrity law prof, granted a sinecure for being a good soldier to the Dem cause. This gig is merely a place to cool off until the total toxicity of his very being could be somewhat forgotten and he could get his next Dem partisan posting. Some such people become shills on CNN and MSNBC and some corrupt scum become law profs.
Andrew Weissman is certified scum, rebuked by the Supreme Court. Willing to lie and wipe iPhones in pursuit of convictions. Rule of Law be damned.
"Under NY law, falsifying a business record is a misdemeanor (Penal Law § 175.05) subject to a 2-year statute of limitations (CPL § 30.10(2)(a)). That date is long past. So they have to charge it as a felony under Penal Law § 175.10, which requires (i) Trump made or caused to be made a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; (ii) with intent to defraud; and (iii) "when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.""
The other "crime" is a federal campaign finance violation. Which was never charged by the feds because it was so weak. If nobody was charged or convicted, how does a state prosecutor "prove" some other crime, was even a crime or even happened?
Re: Iman/Shipwreckedcrew:
Weismann was persona non grata after getting reversed 9-0 and Mueller rescued him off the trash heap by naming him Special Counsel to the Director before naming him Gen. Counsel.
No he wasn't. Immediately before joining Mueller's team in 2017, he was head of the Fraud Section in the US Department of Justice. That's an extremely senior position, with oversight of prosecution of most white collar crimes, including financial frauds and foreign bribery cases. The Supreme Court case overturning the Arthur Andersen conviction was way back 2005. His departure in 2017 wasn't because he was persona non grata -- there had just been a change of administration and DOJ is an executive agency answerable to the President, so like many senior officials in DOJ, he was probably going to be looking for a new job anyhow.
Brian said...
I like that argument. It's ironic too in that Trump is as much of a tomcat as Bill was.
Bill used the power of his office to take advantage of and rape women.
Trump hired porn actresses.
There's a rather fundamental moral difference between the two
BTW. A normal person would think the supposed "crime" was using campaign contributions to pay-off a woman. But that's not the crime, the crime was not reporting the money paid to the woman as a campaign contribution.
I've seen a lot of people on twitter saying that this is what happened. So many times in fact I had to look it up to make sure that it was the Trump Organization that paid Michael Cohen.
According to NY Prosecutors, Trump is guilty of business record violations if he pays Stormy through the Trump Org instead of the Campaign.
And to Fed prosecutors he's guilty of campaign violations if he pays for Stormy through the campaign instead of the Trump Org.
What if Trump paid Cohen with his personal money? There are records of Trump paying him with personal checks.
Also, if paying hush money for sex is a campaign finance violation, then what is all the hush money that Congress paid out to victims over the years? Can we arrest Congress please?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा