Trump’s history-making hush-money trial begins ...

I just thought of Bibi.and the Israeli media.
Somewhat similar.
A certain media would put out only favorable coverage of Bibi/family and negative coverage on his political opponents.
In return Bibi was expected to legislate in favor of laws that benefited the newspaper.

Business wise Pecker's National Enquirer made more money when Trump was being covered and according to his testimony 80% of their readers when polled said they wanted a Trump presidency.
Pecker even published a magazine, "Trump Style".

Both guys, Bibi and Donnie thought it was a win-win, until it wasn't.

'Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu'
Case 2000[edit]

'Case 2000 (also known as the Netanyahu-Mozes affair) is a criminal investigation that concerns the relationship between Netanyahu and the publisher and controlling owner of Yedioth Ahronoth, Arnon Mozes [he].[12] The investigation was conducted by the National Fraud Investigation Unit of the Israeli Police beginning in January 2017. As per the allegations, Mozes offered Netanyahu a significant change for the better in the way Netanyahu and his family members are covered in Yedioth Ahronoth, and a change for the worse in the way his political opponents are covered. In exchange Netanyahu should be using his influence to promote legislation that would impose restrictions on Israel Hayom and bring significant financial benefits to Mozes and his businesses.[13][14]

In November 2019, Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit announced that he had decided to file an indictment against Netanyahu for fraud and breach of trust and against Moses for attempted bribery.[15] The trial began In May 2020.'
;
cont
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial...mber 2019, Netanyahu,starting on 5 April 2021.

 

Show where it was coded as NDA work; be specific

 

Who can forget this?
Oh, I spoke too soon.


Giuliani throws Trump's legal team into disarray

CNN
https://www.cnn.com › 2018/05/03 › politics › rudy-gi...

May 3, 2018 — He said Wednesday night that Trump had funneled money to Cohen to reimburse him for the Daniels payoff and that the President got rid of ...

 

It wasn't a personal expense.
It was political to help him win an election.
REMEMBER!
Stormy 's sex story came on the heels of Trump's vile "Hollywood Access" tape being made public.

 

Nope!
Stormy sued Trump for defamation and lost.
The $400,000 is for Trump's legal defense fees

 

Gag orders are to protect the DEFENDANTS right to a fair impartial trial.

 

So he has never been charged let alone convicted of that crime by the only legal authority with the jurisdiction to so correct?

 

Prove what? Yiu are denying Cohen is notmiut speaking as freely as he wants?

You prove Trump has called for violence against anyone in this trial.

 

Trmp hasn't.

Nope and gag orders are to protect the defendants RIGHTS not deny them.

 

He is in a STATE court he AbsaByGodLutely cannot be charged let alone tried AbsaByGodLutely not convicted for a FEDERAL crime in a STATE court. Civcs 101.

 

When your name is on every building, I think it is. Trump name is the Brand, Trump's name is the business, if all you wrote above you know this. Business protects employees all the time much less the brand.

Bragg isn't claiming it is a personal expense btw, he's claiming he miscoded the entry....if that's the case it's a misdemeanor which they laid out yesterday in court.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bragg-trump-trial.html

I Thought the Bragg Case Against Trump Was a Legal Embarrassment. Now I Think It’s a Historic Mistake.
April 23, 2024

Credit...Mark Peterson for The New York Times


By Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Mr. Shugerman is a law professor at Boston University.

Sign up for the Trump on Trial newsletter. The latest news and analysis on the trials of Donald Trump in New York, Florida, Georgia and Washington, D.C.
About a year ago, when Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, indicted former President Donald Trump, I was critical of the case and called it an embarrassment. I thought an array of legal problems would and should lead to long delays in federal courts.

After listening to Monday’s opening statement by prosecutors, I still think the Manhattan D.A. has made a historic mistake. Their vague allegation about “a criminal scheme to corrupt the 2016 presidential election” has me more concerned than ever about their unprecedented use of state law and their persistent avoidance of specifying an election crime or a valid theory of fraud.

To recap: Mr. Trump is accused in the case of falsifying business records. Those are misdemeanor charges. To elevate it to a criminal case, Mr. Bragg and his team have pointed to potential violations of federal election law and state tax fraud. They also cite state election law, but state statutory definitions of “public office” seem to limit those statutes to state and local races.

Both the misdemeanor and felony charges require that the defendant made the false record with “intent to defraud.” A year ago, I wondered how entirely internal business records (the daily ledger, pay stubs and invoices) could be the basis of any fraud if they are not shared with anyone outside the business. I suggested that the real fraud was Mr. Trump’s filing an (allegedly) false report to the Federal Election Commission, and only federal prosecutors had jurisdiction over that filing.

conversation with Jeffrey Cohen, a friend, Boston College law professor and former prosecutor, made me think that the case could turn out to be more legitimate than I had originally thought. The reason has to do with those allegedly falsified business records: Most of them were entered in early 2017, generally before Mr. Trump filed his Federal Election Commission report that summer. Mr. Trump may have foreseen an investigation into his campaign, leading to its financial records. Mr. Trump may have falsely recorded these internal records before the F.E.C. filing as consciously part of the same fraud: to create a consistent paper trail and to hide intent to violate federal election laws, or defraud the F.E.C.

In short: It’s not the crime; it’s the cover-up.

Looking at the case in this way might address concerns about state jurisdiction. In this scenario, Mr. Trump arguably intended to deceive state investigators, too. State investigators could find these inconsistencies and alert federal agencies. Prosecutors could argue that New York State agencies have an interest in detecting conspiracies to defraud federal entities; they might also have a plausible answer to significant questions about whether New York State has jurisdiction or whether this stretch of a state business filing law is pre-empted by federal law.

However, this explanation is a novel interpretation with many significant legal problems. And none of the Manhattan D.A.’s filings or today’s opening statement even hint at this approach.


Instead of a theory of defrauding state regulators, Mr. Bragg has adopted a weak theory of “election interference,” and Justice Juan Merchan described the case, in his summary of it during jury selection, as an allegation of falsifying business records “to conceal an agreement with others to unlawfully influence the 2016 election.”

As a reality check, it is legal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement. Hush money is unseemly, but it is legal. The election law scholar Richard Hasen rightly observed, “Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.”

In Monday’s opening argument, the prosecutor Matthew Colangelo still evaded specifics about what was illegal about influencing an election, but then he claimed, “It was election fraud, pure and simple.” None of the relevant state or federal statutes refer to filing violations as fraud. Calling it “election fraud” is a legal and strategic mistake, exaggerating the case and setting up the jury with high expectations that the prosecutors cannot meet.

The most accurate description of this criminal case is a federal campaign finance filing violation. Without a federal violation (which the state election statute is tethered to), Mr. Bragg cannot upgrade the misdemeanor counts into felonies. Moreover, it is unclear how this case would even fulfill the misdemeanor requirement of “intent to defraud” without the federal crime.

In stretching jurisdiction and trying a federal crime in state court, the Manhattan D.A. is now pushing untested legal interpretations and applications. I see three red flags raising concerns about selective prosecution upon appeal.

First, I could find no previous case of any state prosecutor relying on the Federal Election Campaign Act either as a direct crime or a predicate crime. Whether state prosecutors have avoided doing so as a matter of law, norms or lack of expertise, this novel attempt is a sign of overreach.

Second, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the New York statute requires that the predicate (underlying) crime must also be a New York crime, not a crime in another jurisdiction. The Manhattan D.A. responded with judicial precedents only about other criminal statutes, not the statute in this case. In the end, they could not cite a single judicial interpretation of this particular statute supporting their use of the statute (a plea deal and a single jury instruction do not count).

broad “election interference” theory is unprecedented, and a conviction based on it may not survive a state appeal.

Mr. Trump’s legal team also undercut itself for its decisions in the past year: His lawyers essentially put all of their eggs in the meritless basket of seeking to move the trial to federal court, instead of seeking a federal injunction to stop the trial entirely. If they had raised the issues of selective or vindictive prosecution and a mix of jurisdictional, pre-emption and constitutional claims, they could have delayed the trial past Election Day, even if they lost at each federal stage.

 

Bragg Said it was coded Legal Expense.

 

Yes, she lost because she filed a frivolous lawsuit to get out of NDA to write a freaking book. Judge ruled she owes 400k, which she hasn't paid. Her lawyer went to jail with Cohn lol.

 

Phew…I’m so glad you haven’t passed that on to his lawyers…!

 

TRaitor tRump's past is catching up to him, his past incitments of violence have motivated the Judge to gag him before he can do it again.

He hasn't been charged with a federal crime. Jr. High Civics.

 

Which is was not, it was reimbursement for election fraud.

 

$850,000 payout > $130,000 payout. Killing Vince Foster > $130,000 payout. Killing Jeffrey Epstein > $130,000 payout.

 

LOL - Your opinion piece states that it should not have been labelled as "legal expenses" yet all along you have been claiming that the expense was correctly labelled as "legal expenses" and you double down on it here in your above post saying it's all about Trump's name. Other than that, it has nothing to do with my post you quoted!

You are also ignoring the fake invoices that were created to the tune of $420,000 that were paid to Cohen to reimburse his expenditure to cover not only the personal £130,000 he paid to Stormy but also the 50% tax equivalent of another $130,000, so that Cohen is not out of pocket) plus a bonus of $160,000 for doing no actual business related work at all

 

Oh I don't care what you list it as, I'm asking what it should have been, if you're not an accountant, not interested in your view. Again misdemeanor either way, again statute of limitations. BTW the author is a LIBERAL lol

 

And what's you're point? TRaitor tRump is guilty? We'll see.

 

• What is "it"?
• What should it have been?
• In NYC accounting misdemeanor's become felony's when committed to obfuscate other crimes.
• Felony statue of limitations are longer than those of misdemeanor's.
• BTW, you're a conservative lol.

 

Well in my business all payments to lawyers are legal expenses. It was money paid for a legal NDA, to a legal lawyer, and legal expense seems the most logical but would love to here an accounts argument. Again though, we're talking about a ledger entry, this is the lowest level job in finance department. Ledger Fraud lol.

 

Thanks to Billy Boy Barr.
But you knew that.

 

All LEGAL payments ...

That's YOUR contention, which is at odds with the NYC DA's contention.

Who was jailed for his involvement ... doesn't sound legal to me.

Me too, I'm guessing we just might at some point in the trial.

It doesn't appear to have been left to a low level employee, though. It's not funny when done to obscure election fraud; that's when it becomes a felony and serious as a heart attack.

 

Why would a lawyer use his own money to pay someone else's company's bill?