How do you know Cohen is lying? His mouth is open and words are coming out.
34 Felony Counts Guilty
Posts
Total:
400
How do you know Cohen is lying? His mouth is open and words are coming out.
Is that why Trump employed him for 10 years and said on TV he’s a great lawyer?
Why did the Russians want Trump to be President? In his letter to Congress, Barr summarizes the Mueller investigation as looking at two areas: Interference by Russia in the 2016 presidential election and obstruction of justice.
The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”
Cohen has said that he recalled Donald Trump Jr, the president’s eldest son, telling his father “in a low voice” in early June 2016: “The meeting is all set.” Cohen claims this was a reference to Donald Jr’s now-infamous gathering with several Russians, including a lawyer with ties to the Kremlin, at Trump Tower that month.
-->
@FLRW
Stop defending Trump. He is evil.
-->
@Greyparrot
Tru-dat!
-->
@Greyparrot
At least you are not a Russian.
-->
@FLRW
Omg parrot conceded that Trump is evil!
-->
@FLRW
“did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts,"
I am calling the FBI to have you arrested for hate speech and disinformation.
-->
@Greyparrot
I am calling the FBI to have you arrested for hate speech and disinformation.
Hey, I'm not a speech writer for Trump!
-->
@FLRW
At least you are not a Russian.
No, Putin made him an honorary Russian two years ago.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Negotiating with her and then paying her as part of a NDA is a legal expense.
No, it’s not. What a ridiculous thing to argue.
Negotiating with her - that’s a legal expense. The cost of traveling to her (if done in person) - that’s a legal expense. The time spent drafting the NDA - that’s a legal expense. Taking out a home equity loan against your own house to pay her the $130k she was asking for… that is not a legal expense. That’s not what lawyers do.
Lawyers practice law and they bill their clients for their time and for expenses incurred as a result of performing their services. Funding your client’s schemes to later be repayed is not an expense incurred - it’s a reimbursement. If you own a business and you send your employee to the store to purchase can of paint and then repay them when they return with it, the repayment is not part of their salary.
Everyone knows this. That’s why the three of them worked out this scheme where Cohen would be reimbursed the $130k plus the taxes he would incur on it. And why would he have to pay taxes on it? Because if Trump was paying this money to him as a legal expense then Cohen would have to report it as income which means he’d be taxed on it. And why would he be taxed on that money? Because that’s what legal expenses are - income to the person who performed the service. This was not that, so they had to hide it.
If you are seriously arguing in good faith and are really convinced of what you argue, you would ask yourself why Trump, his attorney, and his accountant cooked up this scheme in the first place when it was so simple from the start, and why Trump’s defense team didn’t pound this issue in the trial. Why go to such great lengths to cover up a perfectly legitimate transaction?
Because it wasn’t legitimate, and they all knew it.
If I hand my attorney $100k to put in escrow account as a down payment on a house, that $100k is part of the purchase price. I don’t get to write that $100k off as “legal services”.Taxes have nothing to do with whether the description of the payment is false.
Neither did it have anything to do with my point, but when you’re so obviously wrong there’s no other option but to attack the straw man.
The example was yet another illustration of the separation between the services your lawyer performs (which are valid legal expenses) and them funding your ventures (which is not).
Handing your attorney money for a house and him using that money to execute the purchase of the house on your behalf, does not make that money “legal expenses”.
NDAs are legal expenses on their own.
In most cases, yes they are. Because typically NDA’s are worked out beforehand where the person agreeing not to speak is doing so because they have something to gain from whatever activity would expose them to the confidential information. In that case there are no other expenses incurred other than the legal services it took to execute it.
That’s not what this was, so it’s dishonest of you to portray it as such. The individual had the information already and was free to speak if she so chose. The expense here was to purchase that right. The purchase itself was not of legal services.
Your gaslighting is utterly disgusting.Filthy.Vile.I've given you far far too much respect before now.
Translation: “I have no arguments left, so at this point I will only resort to insulting you to avoid confronting the fact that I have no arguments left.”
-->
@Swagnarok
Yes, I know how jury trials work.
Then why are you arguing it is suspicious that we don’t know their identities?
The process as it's worked for centuries is no reliable indicator for this case.
If you have no information (as was your claim) then there is nothing left to base a position on.
Never has there been so strong a unanimous motive from so many diverse actors to make sure the defendant gets convicted.
Because never has there ever been an actor who has so flagrantly flaunted the law in front of all of our faces with such impunity. You guys love to blame law enforcement for the consequences of Trump’s actions as if Trump himself is not responsible. That’s absurd.
The DA staked his entire public reputation, and possible reelection chances, on Trump going to jail. Liberals in general, due to years of oligarch conditioning, tend to feel incredible distress at the thought of Trump being President again and would make moral compromises they wouldn't otherwise make in the pursuit of "defending" themselves and the country against him. This applies to the jurors, the judge, and countless other people who had any degree of influence over the trial.
Irrelevant to whether the facts support a criminal conviction. Again, you demonize everyone involved because you have no argument.
And in hindsight yes, there is apparently some evidence that would throw the verdict into question. Like the judge giving jury instructions which downplayed Trump's right to the presumption that he had no criminal motive [necessary for his conviction IIRC] until proven that he did.
That’s what the access Hollywood tape, the Hope Hicks testimony and a few other pieces established. His motives were beyond clear.
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s more so to prove you were wrong and to tell ADreamOfLiberty of when it’s worth talking to you
lol right… to prove I was wrong… by ignoring the fact that ADOL is declaring himself the victor of our forum debates and responding only to me pointing out why his arguments are stupid… not by showing how they aren’t stupid, but by beating your own chest.
Great proof. Maybe one day I’ll be on your level so I can understand it.
-->
@FLRW
Russians named their best aircraft after Trump.
Su 57 felon
-->
@Double_R
Taking out a home equity loan against your own house to pay her the $130k she was asking for… that is not a legal expense. That’s not what lawyers do.
Cause he was rouge. He also stole from his client. Not normal for lawyers (hopefully).
Funding your client’s schemes to later be repayed is not an expense incurred - it’s a reimbursement.
NDAs are not "schemes" anymore than a mortgage escrow or a will. It's only Cohen's scheme because he was doing things his client never asked for, which is dishonest; but so is stealing and lying to everyone in the known universe.
If Trump had wanted to entered a compensated NDA he has every fucking right to do so and to label the whole thing "legal expenses" in any fucking ledger he wanted.
He could also have written down "NDA compensation" without being at all specific about to whom or for why and that would also be substantially true and bypass your INANE GASLIGHTING attempt. That is in the fantasy world where Trump is filling out business expense records personally.
Why would he not do that if there was even the slightest hint in all precedent and by any professional that an NDA was not a legal expense or that dangerously insane people would declare that calling an NDA a legal expense would be a felony?
The facts fit only one explanation: Cohen was a rouge who was doing things without Trump's endorsement and no one in the entire fucking world (that "everybody" you falsely appeal to below) would ever in a thousand years expect something so benign as "NDA payment" vs "legal expense" to result in the slightest bit of legal trouble.
Everyone knows this.
You are not everybody. In a hundred years everybody will remember your ilk as filthy lying gaslighting cultist.
That’s why the three of them worked out this scheme where Cohen would be reimbursed the $130k plus the taxes he would incur on it. And why would he have to pay taxes on it? Because if Trump was paying this money to him as a legal expense then Cohen would have to report it as income which means he’d be taxed on it. And why would he be taxed on that money? Because that’s what legal expenses are - income to the person who performed the service. This was not that, so they had to hide it.
So cultist, you're claiming that Trump knowingly paid Cohen unnecessary amount extra to cover taxes so that Cohen would be reimbursed for an NDA all so he didn't have to write "NDA" on a ledger?
Why?
I know why Cohen did it, because he took out a secret loan to pay Daniels and he knew Trump would not approve an NDA (having a policy against them). If there is no reason to hide it from Trump there was no reason not to put down "NDA" (other than everyone in the universe being fine labeling it legal expense, aka reality before the cult warped your mind).
If you are seriously arguing in good faith and are really convinced of what you argue
Fantasying about something you'll never experience?
you would ask yourself why Trump, his attorney, and his accountant cooked up this scheme in the first place when it was so simple from the start
He didn't cook up anything. Cohen did. Then he billed Trump for it. Then Trump's accountant paid a retained lawyer what that lawyer billed.
Do you think Trump "cooked up" being stolen from? Did you ask yourself that question? Well you wouldn't admit it if you did because you are a gaslighting cultist.
If you own a business and you send your employee to the store to purchase can of paint and then repay them when they return with it, the repayment is not part of their salary.
Which would have the slightest bit of relevance if the invoice was marked "salary", and it might have been if Cohen had lied about that too. The special absurdity is the fact that even if the proven admitted pathological liar Cohen was believed, it would still have been entirely legal.
It's like using Bill Clinton to convict Monica Lewinsky of buying a doughnut. Even if you could believe a word out of his face, she's allowed to buy a doughnut.
why Trump’s defense team didn’t pound this issue in the trial
There was no trial. There were defense lawyers pretending there was a trial when in fact they were surrounded by mouth-frothing gaslighting cultists like yourself. They proceeded to execute a witch burning.
Did his lawyers say something along the lines that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that Trump told Cohen to take out a personal loan against his house (or something) because he was going to pay him back later plus taxes all to avoid writing down "NDA"? Probably, but you surely couldn't hear that above the baying for blood.
Why go to such great lengths to cover up a perfectly legitimate transaction?Because it wasn’t legitimate, and they all knew it.
Except NDAs are legal, always have been. The only person with any reason what so ever to hide that he was paying NDA compensation is Michael Cohen and the only possible reason is that he didn't want to bother Trump with it and feared Trump would disagree with the strategy.
Trump gains NOTHING by paying for Cohen's taxes. He gains NOTHING by having Cohen shuffle personal money and credits around. The only possible motivation for this scheme is that Cohen did not want Trump to know and that is EXACTLY what Cohen admitted previously.
Handing your attorney money for a house and him using that money to buy the house on your behalf, does not make that money “legal expenses”.
If it's not itemized it does. As would the label "down payment" be substantially true.
The purchase itself was not of legal services.
Non disclosure isn't a product, this is a specific contract where constitutional rights are yielded. That's a non-commercial contract. Contracts are legal agreements. That's a legal expense. Not a legal service, a legal expense. No different from settling out of court (also legal expenses).
Translation: “I have no arguments left, so at this point I will only resort to insulting you to avoid confronting the fact that I have no arguments left.”
Projection, well except instead of insults (which you do use) you just recycle your defeated assertions. Maybe I'll count this time even though it's more work.
-->
@Double_R
Socrates.Never has there been so strong a unanimous motive from so many diverse actors to make sure the defendant gets convicted.Because never has there ever been an actor who has so flagrantly flaunted the law in front of all of our faces with such impunity.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Socrates.
Checkmate. Also Jesus. And every abolitionist.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.
-1787
-->
@Greyparrot
Socrates.Checkmate. Also Jesus. And every abolitionist.
Abolitionist, I forgot John Brown; but of course he did do the armed rebellion thing however justified. Socrates just talked and they made shit up cause they didn't like what they were hearing so it's more similar to Trump and Jesus.
"Not denying you're the king of the jews every time I ask? That's gota be a crime!"
That letter happens to have another relevant quote for our time:
Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves.
The deep state media operates in much the same manner. Arms of the deeper state in practice if not name. In both times there were liberal elements of the government with their enlightened supporters but the deep state's deepest wish was continued, greater, and eternal empire.
So quickly do these lies permeate into the left-tribe that no sooner have they heard them than they are willing to tell everyone without shame that the lie has always been the truth. This has been shown in exemplary fashion by Double_R on more than one occasion.
Paying lawyers isn't a legal expense. Everybody knows this. It's always been this way.
Riots have always been peaceful. Everybody knows this. It's always been this way.
Let's start by putting your question in it's proper context; studies showed that something like 93% of the BLM riots had no incidents of violence or property crimes.
Voter fraud over the margin of victory isn't a problem. Everybody knows this. It's always been this way.
So even if there was voter fraud on a scale where fraudulent ballots surpassed the margin of victory, you still would have no reason to believe that fraud changed the outcome.
Saying your opponent lost the election (despite being declared accepted as the winner by the procedures of the previous government) isn't denying election results. Everybody knows this. It never has been.
Please find one example of democrats "denying election results""I think he is an illegitimate president that didn't really win.""You are absolutely right" - Kamela Harris"Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016, he lost the election." - Jimmy CarterJust because someone uses the same words didn't mean they're saying the same thing.
Oh and let's not forget that people have always been liable for defamation for attacking the credibility of accusers. Everybody knows this!
-->
@Double_R
lol right… to prove I was wrong… by ignoring the fact that ADOL is declaring himself the victor of our forum debates and responding only to me pointing out why his arguments are stupid… not by showing how they aren’t stupid, but by beating your own chest.Great proof. Maybe one day I’ll be on your level so I can understand it.
Lol maybe you should debate him if you’re so confident in your debating ability. We’ll see who wins :)
-->
@ILikePie5
We have been debating. The only seeing is logic, or reality if a prediction was made.
Respect is earned. The pseudo judges, pseudo prosecutors, pseudo juries took polished silver and tarnished it with muddy bile.
Like Alan Dershowitz, Biden voter, I urge disrespect.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That was kinda weird he dug his heels in over the whole "NDA to shut someone up isn't a legal expense"
It's the ridiculous unquestioning acceptance of authoritarian lies that has really screwed this country up. Apparently, rampant inflation, corruption, invasions, and crime isn't enough to change this behavior yet, which means something much worse is inevitable.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Taking out a home equity loan against your own house to pay her the $130k she was asking for… that is not a legal expense. That’s not what lawyers do.Cause he was rouge.
So the story you believe to be most credible is that Trump’s personal attorney, who engaged in a plot to steal from his client, was also so loyal and so concerned about that same client that he decided to take out a loan against his own house to pay off a porn star so that porn star would not disclose the affair she had with him. Really?
You are not this stupid.
And even if we wanted to pretend that this absurdly stupid story was credible, how do you deal with Trump’s own accountant working out the math to pay this rogue attorney back? And the recordings that demonstrated how involved Trump was in all of this? And the circumstances that all aligned with Trump engaging in this behavior?
This is what being in a cult actually looks like.
If Trump had wanted to entered a compensated NDA he has every fucking right to do so and to label the whole thing "legal expenses" in any fucking ledger he wanted.
That’s literally what the law says he can’t do. Not sure if you’re aware of this, but we just had a whole trial over it.
He could also have written down "NDA compensation" without being at all specific about to whom or for why
What he could have done is completely irrelevant to what he did and whether his actions were legal.
Why would he not do that if there was even the slightest hint in all precedent and by any professional that an NDA was not a legal expense
Because as I have already explained and you completely ignored; this was not just an NDA. Stormy already had the information they didn’t want disclosed, so they weren’t just agreeing to provide information for silence. They were purchasing her rights to information she already had. That’s not what NDA’s typically entail, and that purchase is entirely separate from the legal services that put the contract together.
So cultist, you're claiming that Trump knowingly paid Cohen unnecessary amount extra to cover taxes so that Cohen would be reimbursed for an NDA all so he didn't have to write "NDA" on a ledger?Why?
Because that would have made it obvious that he was making an illegal campaign contribution.
Did you pay attention to any of the trial?
He didn't cook up anything. Cohen did. Then he billed Trump for it. Then Trump's accountant paid a retained lawyer what that lawyer billed.
Oh right because Trump is known for paying all of his legal bills without questioning any of them right? And his accountant didn’t bother to question any of this or bring any of this to Trump’s attention right?
There no way you are being serious.
If you own a business and you send your employee to the store to purchase can of paint and then repay them when they return with it, the repayment is not part of their salary.Which would have the slightest bit of relevance if the invoice was marked "salary"
It’s an analogy genius. Salary vs legal expenses are analogous because they are both payment for services (aka income to the service provider). Repaying a purchase is not.
There was no trial. There were defense lawyers pretending there was a trial
So Trump’s own attorneys are also part of the conspiracy, lol. This is what being in a cult actually looks like.
Except NDAs are legal, always have been.
Purchasing an ak47 is legal, always have been. Until you purchase it for someone else with the intent for them to rob a bank. Then you become an accessory to grand larceny.
Trump gains NOTHING by paying for Cohen's taxes. He gains NOTHING by having Cohen shuffle personal money and credits around.
Are you on crack?
Trump literally gained the US presidency. That was the entire point of the trial.
What the hell did Micheal Cohen gain by borrowing 130k against his house to pay off a porn star he didn’t sleep with? What is wrong with you?
Non disclosure isn't a product
Yes it absolutely is when the person already has the information.
-->
@Greyparrot
That was kinda weird he dug his heels in over the whole "NDA to shut someone up isn't a legal expense"
As I’ve repeatedly explained and ADOL has completely ignored, we’re not talking about an NDA in any traditional sense. An NDA is “I’m going to hire you to do a job for me and you’re not going to tell anyone what you saw”. This was “you have information that would be damaging to me so I want to purchase it from you”.
These two things are not remotely the same. The work put in by your attorneys to negotiate and draw up the contract is legal services. The money that pays off the holder of that information is not.
Why is this so difficult for you guys?
-->
@Double_R
in any traditional sense
Unlike your opinions, NDA's are not bound by context "senses"
It's a precise legal document.
-->
@Greyparrot
On October 8, 2016, Pecker allegedly learned that Daniels was trying to sell the story of her alleged 2006 affair with Trump.
On October 9, Cohen allegedly learned that Pecker had instructed AMI to not purchase Daniels' story.
On October 17, Cohen submitted paperwork to create a Delaware-registered limited liability company named "Essential Consultants, LLC".
On October 25, Pecker again allegedly told Cohen that AMI would not buy Daniels' story and that Pecker believed Cohen should buy her story.
On October 26, Cohen opened a bank account for the LLC and on October 27 used his personal line of credit to wire $130,000 into the LLC's account. Cohen corresponded with the bank using his Trump Organization email account and representing himself as "Special Counsel to Donald J. Trump".
On October 9, Cohen allegedly learned that Pecker had instructed AMI to not purchase Daniels' story.
On October 17, Cohen submitted paperwork to create a Delaware-registered limited liability company named "Essential Consultants, LLC".
On October 25, Pecker again allegedly told Cohen that AMI would not buy Daniels' story and that Pecker believed Cohen should buy her story.
On October 26, Cohen opened a bank account for the LLC and on October 27 used his personal line of credit to wire $130,000 into the LLC's account. Cohen corresponded with the bank using his Trump Organization email account and representing himself as "Special Counsel to Donald J. Trump".
-->
@FLRW
October won't save you. Nothing can.
-->
@Double_R
Taking out a home equity loan against your own house to pay her the $130k she was asking for… that is not a legal expense. That’s not what lawyers do.Cause he was rouge.So the story you believe to be most credible is that Trump’s personal attorney, who engaged in a plot to steal from his client, was also so loyal and so concerned about that same client that he decided to take out a loan against his own house to pay off a porn star so that porn star would not disclose the affair she had with him. Really?
It doesn't do Trump any favors to take out a personal loan and then force Trump to pay back everything plus taxes when Trump could have just paid Cohen directly without taxes, interest, or Cohen's collateral. There is no loyalty there, there is deceiving Trump and the only possible reason to deceive Trump is Cohen is a goofball with delusions of grandeur who thought he would do all this stuff and pretend to be a wizard or as he puts it "a fixer", again all of this was confessed by Cohen before he found a bidder for more of his primary export: lies.
You are not this stupid.
You are this dishonest.
how do you deal with Trump’s own accountant working out the math to pay this rogue attorney back?
Cohen sent invoices?
And the recordings that demonstrated how involved Trump was in all of this?
If by involved you mean he signed checks like any CEO and had an accounted that is irrelevant. If you mean involved as in told anyone to write down "legal expense" or thought for a microsecond that it wasn't a "legal expense" to pay Cohen, or even if you mean suggesting or approving hush money (a legal expense because hush money is short hand for compensated NDA) THEN: no such recording exists. If it did there would be no misdemeanor or felony because it is a legal expense and NDAs are legal and have never been "a conspiracy to defraud the voter".
I do however look forward to the world in which hiding any information that a prejudiced jury might find relevant to voters is a "conspiracy to defraud the voter", we're going to need very big gulags for all the deep state satellite organizations. CNN, MSNBC, the entire DNC, Pretty much everyone in the DC offices of the FBI, CIA, ATF, etc....
What kind of hard labor would be appropriate for them?
This is what being in a cult actually looks like.
Said the gaslighting cultist.
If Trump had wanted to entered a compensated NDA he has every fucking right to do so and to label the whole thing "legal expenses" in any fucking ledger he wanted.That’s literally what the law says he can’t do.
rofl, your law is imaginary and as meaningless and contemptible as the fake court.
Not sure if you’re aware of this, but we just had a whole trial over it.
Did you know the moon is made of cheese? There was a trial.
He could also have written down "NDA compensation" without being at all specific about to whom or for whyWhat he could have done is completely irrelevant to what he did and whether his actions were legal
Listen filthy cultist liar, it's entirely relevant to the motivations you just claimed. It is insane to claim someone would do by illegal means what one can do by legal means just as easily. Your red herrings and misdirections are painfully transparent.
Why would he not do that if there was even the slightest hint in all precedent and by any professional that an NDA was not a legal expenseBecause as I have already explained and you completely ignored; this was not just an NDA. Stormy already had the information they didn’t want disclosed, so they weren’t just agreeing to provide information for silence.
NDAs aren't "information for silence" it's a binding legal contract for silence.
They were purchasing her rights to information she already had.
She didn't have information, she had lies, and she still had the same information after signing the NDA. The only thing they were "purchasing" was a right to sue her and win if she talked and contracts resolving liability or creating a civil cause are all "legal expenses" whether you want to describe it as "purchasing" or not. A court filing fee is "purchasing" the right to be noticed by the court, but it is still a legal expense even if the word "purchase" can be used in some way.
That’s not what NDA’s typically entail
"Purchasing" a promise to "not disclose" is exactly what NDAs ALL entail. A vast category of NDAs are preemptive anti-defamation documents in which the party seeking silence does not care if what is disclosed is true or false.
An entire class of blackmail crimes revolve around extorting compensated NDAs from rich powerful people with the threat of both true and far more often false claims.
and that purchase is entirely separate from the legal services that put the contract together.
Make a law if it's that important to you, but it won't be retroactive. There is no law which specifies the amount of itemization required in this context. If there was such a law the accountant would surely have required further details from Cohen, who could have lied; but then that would be his crime wouldn't it.
So cultist, you're claiming that Trump knowingly paid Cohen unnecessary amount extra to cover taxes so that Cohen would be reimbursed for an NDA all so he didn't have to write "NDA" on a ledger?Why?Because that would have made it obvious that he was making an illegal campaign contribution.
Ah, so the insane gaslighting obvious falsehood that paying a lawyer is in no way a legal expense must be combined with the insane gaslighting obvious falsehood that an NDA is a campaign contribution.
Maybe they cancel out?
No, they just multiply. (insane gaslighting obvious falsehood)^2
Did you pay attention to any of the trial?
I followed as much of the show trial as was possible, it was limited to secondhand reports of people in the pseudocourt due to the fake fascist judge preventing the American people (in violation of the constitution) from directly viewing his treasonous actions.
He didn't cook up anything. Cohen did. Then he billed Trump for it. Then Trump's accountant paid a retained lawyer what that lawyer billed.Oh right because Trump is known for paying all of his legal bills without questioning any of them right?
Cohen is known for telling the truth right? No? Well did he tell the truth when he said he stole from Trump? Right, now if Trump was questioning the invoices, why wouldn't Trump notice the stealing?
And his accountant didn’t bother to question any of this or bring any of this to Trump’s attention right?
Right. Happens all the time. Lawyers get paid big money. They send the invoices. Accountants don't follow them around with drones to see how many hours they worked. A lot of business relationships work based on trust and belief in the fact that if someone did want to commit a serious crime like embezzlement, fraud, and theft they would be dissuaded by the threat of the justice system.
Of course if there is no justice system anymore that doesn't work too well, hence the admission of serious felonies being ignored because the admitted perjurer was helpful in destroying enemies of the state.
There no way you are being serious.
The lies and absurdities you say with all pretense of seriousness are snowflakes in an avalanche that is going to cut a lot of lives short. When I see the suffering, I will remember you.
Salary vs legal expenses are analogous because they are both payment for services (aka income to the service provider). Repaying a purchase is not.
Legal expenses aren't limited to payment for services. They include court fees, settlement sums, research, copying, notaries, verified delivery, paying fines, paying liabilities, and more.
There is no controlling legal definition, if there was it would surely have been known to the certified accountant, thus the common understanding controls and the common understanding is "any expense which is paid to or through lawyers, or at the behest of a judge, or in connection with contracted behavior liabilities of any kind."
Legal expenses may be other kinds of expenses at the same time, that's what happens when fuzzy definitions overlap. The only way for "legal expense" to be substantially false is for the expense to have nothing to do with lawyers, courts, judges, negotiated contracts, criminal liability, or civil liability (all at once).
There was no trial. There were defense lawyers pretending there was a trialSo Trump’s own attorneys are also part of the conspiracy, lol.
So was Trump if playing along is a conspiracy. It's more like giving a salute when they drag you in front of nazi show trial.
Even if you don't believe they have any legitimate authority, if you play along there is a chance they'll look unreasonable. No conspiracy is required to pretend deference to madmen with a gun to your head.
Now I don't think Trump should have played along, but his strategy seems to be working and my principles may not have. In other words if he had refused to show up or pretend there was a trial they would have said he was afraid and that there was a bunch of evidence that we won't hear because he's a fugitive.
This forced the fascist to dance all the way to the end of their wretched performance and show the people and the world that they had NOTHING.
This is what being in a cult actually looks like.
Said the gaslighting cultist.
Except NDAs are legal, always have been.Purchasing an ak47 is legal, always have been. Until you purchase it for someone else with the intent for them to rob a bank. Then you become an accessory to grand larceny.
So NDAs are now a means to commit a crime. The crime being?... to enter into a compensated NDA while running for public office? because that's "campaign contribution?" Except that's legal, because NDAs aren't campaign contributions, never have been.
In either case the "NDA" was the means to commit the "crime" of "buying an NDA". So to correct your analogy:
Purchasing an ak47 is legal, always have been. Until you purchase it with intent to own it. Then you become an accessory to grand larceny.
In fact it is much more likely that it is illegal to use campaign funds for an NDA, and the would certainly have gone after Trump if he had done such a thing for defrauding donators and violating some FEC something or other about using campaign money for personal expenses.
If you're Donald Trump you're not allowed to have personal expenses or campaign expenses. In fact just the word "expense" is dangerous and fraudulent. This is all Trump's fault, if he would just disappear from the face of the Earth he wouldn't have to spend any money on anything!
Trump gains NOTHING by paying for Cohen's taxes. He gains NOTHING by having Cohen shuffle personal money and credits around.Are you on crack?
Are you a gaslighting cultist? That is a rhetorical question due to the fact that the answer is obviously: Yes.
Trump literally gained the US presidency.
Which he could not have done by writing down "NDA" because it is illegal for him to "purchase" an NDA with personal money because NDAs are campaign contributions even when the money isn't coming from contributors.
So I guess you can't use contributors money, and you can't use your own money. Who could have guessed campaign finance law made compensated NDAs illegal? Amazing how we're just finding this out now at the time when Trump is hit with three other fake indictments and a fake defamation suit. What a weird coincidence!
One little problem, the FEC doesn't agree.