CNN Panel Stuns Viewers, Shreds Alvin Bragg’s Case against Trump

[Stoic]

"complain"? Interesting choice of words. This is CNN -- never-Trump personified -- so I think it's more that they are "commiserating".

Until you watch it yourself, you just have the Daily Caller's spin on it.

[Cow Poke]

Until you watch it yourself, you just have the Daily Caller's spin on it.

You are certainly entitled to be in error. Don't ya just love America?

[Stoic]

You are certainly entitled to be in error.

Just as you are.

Don't ya just love America?

Absolutely.

[Cow Poke]

Just as you are.


Absolutely.

Cool.

[Cow Poke]

Alvin Bragg’s Case Against Trump Suffers More Setbacks as Another Witness Deflates His Narrative—and the Media’s

NEW YORK—Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case suffered more setbacks Thursday as the prosecution’s sixth witness wrapped up his testimony with significant hits to his credibility.

During a heated cross-examination, defense attorney Emil Bove managed to cast Keith Davidson, former attorney for Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, as a shady lawyer who gets as close to the line as he can without crossing it, brokering deals that border on extortion.

[Sam]

Alvin Bragg’s Case Against Trump Suffers More Setbacks as Another Witness Deflates His Narrative—and the Media’s

NEW YORK—Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case suffered more setbacks Thursday as the prosecution’s sixth witness wrapped up his testimony with significant hits to his credibility.

During a heated cross-examination, defense attorney Emil Bove managed to cast Keith Davidson, former attorney for Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, as a shady lawyer who gets as close to the line as he can without crossing it, brokering deals that border on extortion.

I followed Davidson's testimony and cross and I do not see how casting him as a near-extortionist helped discredit his testimony, which established the understanding that the deal was made to help Trump's campaign, was time-limited to the election, and provided contemporaneous witness to Trump's personal involvement.

How do you suggest that Davidson's credibility regarding the facts of the deal was called into question?

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

This is an instance where OMB should have waved a jury trial. Even the most biased of judges would have a difficult time justifying handing down a guilty verdict, while you can easily get jurors who don't give a flip about the evidence and don't really have to justify their decision.

They tried that with the real estate case where there was zero evidence of fraud, with even the companies supposedly defrauded saying there was no deceit, but the judge found him guilty anyway.

[Sparko]

"It wasn't illegal because another potential funding method would have also been illegal" isn't really a defense!

Gee, Sam, that seems to be how many laws work. I have an HSA account where I can use it to pay for approved medical items/drugs, but I can't use that HSA to by myself a new Playstation. It would be against the law.

There is nothing illegal about paying someone for an NDA with your personal or corporate accounts. It really is unethical though, as the affair in the first place was immoral.

[Sam]

Gee, Sam, that seems to be how many laws work. I have an HSA account where I can use it to pay for approved medical items/drugs, but I can't use that HSA to by myself a new Playstation. It would be against the law.

There is nothing illegal about paying someone for an NDA with your personal or corporate accounts. It really is unethical though, as the affair in the first place was immoral.

If that payment is made pursuant to a an election for public office and you don't classify it as such, instead paying for it through personal or corporate accounts, you violate campaign finance laws and it is indeed illegal.

You're arguing, in essence, that straw donations aren't illegal because it's not generally illegal to give someone else money.

-Sam

[Sam]

This isn't remotely hypothetical, either. Michael Cohen was already convicted of this scheme:

Source: Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations. USAO, SDNY. 2018.08.21

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, Title 52, United States Code, Section 30101, et seq., (the “Election Act”), regulates the influence of money on politics. At all relevant times, the Election Act set certain limitations and prohibitions, among them: (a) individual contributions to any presidential candidate, including expenditures coordinated with a candidate or his political committee, were limited to $2,700 per election, and presidential candidates and their committees were prohibited from accepting contributions from individuals in excess of this limit; and (b) Corporations were prohibited from making contributions directly to presidential candidates, including expenditures coordinated with candidates or their committees, and candidates were prohibited from accepting corporate contributions.

On June 16, 2015, Individual-1 began his presidential campaign. While COHEN continued to work at the Company and did not have a formal title with the campaign, he had a campaign email address and, at various times, advised the campaign, including on matters of interest to the press, and made televised and media appearances on behalf of the campaign.

In August 2015, the Chairman and Chief Executive of Corporation-1, a media company that owns, among other things, a popular tabloid magazine (“Chairman-1” and “Magazine-1,” respectively”), in coordination with COHEN and one or more members of the campaign, offered to help deal with negative stories about Individual-1’s relationships with women by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided. Chairman-1 agreed to keep COHEN apprised of any such negative stories.

Consistent with the agreement described above, Corporation-1 advised COHEN of negative stories during the course of the campaign, and COHEN, with the assistance of Corporation-1, was able to arrange for the purchase of two stories so as to suppress them and prevent them from influencing the election.

First, in June 2016, a model and actress (“Woman-1”) began attempting to sell her story of her alleged extramarital affair with Individual-1 that had taken place in 2006 and 2007, knowing the story would be of considerable value because of the election. Woman-1 retained an attorney (“Attorney-1”), who in turn contacted the editor-in-chief of Magazine-1 (“Editor-1”), and offered to sell Woman-1’s story to Magazine-1. Chairman-1 and Editor-1 informed COHEN of the story. At COHEN’s urging and subject to COHEN’s promise that Corporation-1 would be reimbursed, Editor-1 ultimately began negotiating for the purchase of the story.

On August 5, 2016, Corporation-1 entered into an agreement with Woman-1 to acquire her “limited life rights” to the story of her relationship with “any then-married man,” in exchange for $150,000 and a commitment to feature her on two magazine covers and publish more than 100 magazine articles authored by her. Despite the cover and article features to the agreement, its principal purpose, as understood by those involved, including COHEN, was to suppress Woman-1’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.

Between late August 2016 and September 2016, COHEN agreed with Chairman-1 to assign the rights to the non-disclosure portion of Corporation-1’s agreement with Woman-1 to COHEN for $125,000. COHEN incorporated a shell entity called “Resolution Consultants LLC” for use in the transaction. Both Chairman-1 and COHEN ultimately signed the agreement, and a consultant for Corporation-1, using his own shell entity, provided COHEN with an invoice for the payment of $125,000. However, in early October 2016, after the assignment agreement was signed but before COHEN had paid the $125,000, Chairman-1 contacted COHEN and told him, in substance, that the deal was off and that COHEN should tear up the assignment agreement.

Second, on October 8, 2016, an agent for an adult film actress (“Woman-2”) informed Editor-1 that Woman-2 was willing to make public statements and confirm on the record her alleged past affair with Individual-1. Chairman-1 and Editor-1 then contacted COHEN and put him in touch with Attorney-1, who was also representing Woman-2. Over the course of the next few days, COHEN negotiated a $130,000 agreement with Attorney-1 to himself purchase Woman-2’s silence, and received a signed confidential settlement agreement and a separate side letter agreement from Attorney-1.

COHEN did not immediately execute the agreement, nor did he pay Woman-2. On the evening of October 25, 2016, with no deal with Woman-2 finalized, Attorney-1 told Editor-1 that Woman-2 was close to completing a deal with another outlet to make her story public. Editor-1, in turn, texted COHEN that “[w]e have to coordinate something on the matter [Attorney-1 is] calling you about or it could look awfully bad for everyone.” Chairman-1 and Editor-1 then called COHEN through an encrypted telephone application. COHEN agreed to make the payment, and then called Attorney-1 to finalize the deal.

The next day, on October 26, 2016, COHEN emailed an incorporating service to obtain the corporate formation documents for another shell corporation, Essential Consultants LLC, which COHEN had incorporated a few days prior. Later that afternoon, COHEN drew down $131,000 from the fraudulently obtained HELOC and requested that it be deposited into a bank account COHEN had just opened in the name of Essential Consultants. The next morning, on October 27, 2016, COHEN went to Bank-3 and wired approximately $130,000 from Essential Consultants to Attorney-1. On the bank form to complete the wire, COHEN falsely indicated that the “purpose of wire being sent” was “retainer.” On November 1, 2016, COHEN received from Attorney-1 copies of the final, signed confidential settlement agreement and side letter agreement.

COHEN caused and made the payments described herein in order to influence the 2016 presidential election. In so doing, he coordinated with one or more members of the campaign, including through meetings and phone calls, about the fact, nature, and timing of the payments. As a result of the payments solicited and made by COHEN, neither Woman-1 nor Woman-2 spoke to the press prior to the election.

In January 2017, COHEN in seeking reimbursement for election-related expenses, presented executives of the Company with a copy of a bank statement from the Essential Consultants bank account, which reflected the $130,000 payment COHEN had made to the bank account of Attorney-1 in order to keep Woman-2 silent in advance of the election, plus a $35 wire fee, adding, in handwriting, an additional “$50,000.” The $50,000 represented a claimed payment for “tech services,” which in fact related to work COHEN had solicited from a technology company during and in connection with the campaign. COHEN added these amounts to a sum of $180,035. After receiving this document, executives of the Company “grossed up” for tax purposes COHEN’s requested reimbursement of $180,000 to $360,000, and then added a bonus of $60,000 so that COHEN would be paid $420,000 in total. Executives of the Company also determined that the $420,000 would be paid to COHEN in monthly amounts of $35,000 over the course of 12 months, and that COHEN should send invoices for these payments.

On February 14, 2017, COHEN sent an executive of the Company (“Executive-1”) the first of his monthly invoices, requesting “[p]ursuant to [a] retainer agreement, . . . payment for services rendered for the months of January and February, 2017.” The invoice listed $35,000 for each of those two months. Executive-1 forwarded the invoice to another executive of the Company (“Executive-2”) the same day by email, and it was approved. Executive-1 forwarded that email to another employee at the Company, stating: “Please pay from the Trust. Post to legal expenses. Put ‘retainer for the months of January and February 2017’ in the description.”

Throughout 2017, COHEN sent to one or more representatives of the Company monthly invoices, which stated, “Pursuant to the retainer agreement, kindly remit payment for services rendered for” the relevant month in 2017, and sought $35,000 per month. The Company accounted for these payments as legal expenses. In truth and in fact, there was no such retainer agreement, and the monthly invoices COHEN submitted were not in connection with any legal services he had provided in 2017.

During 2017, pursuant to the invoices described above, COHEN received monthly $35,000 reimbursement checks, totaling $420,000.

* * *

COHEN, 51, of NEW YORK, NEW YORK, pleaded guilty to five counts of willful tax evasion; one count of making false statements to a bank; one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution; and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution.

COHEN’S sentencing is scheduled for December 12 at 11 a.m.

© Copyright Original Source

You'd think people would have a bit more sense than to argue it isn't a crime but, when it comes to Trump the rules must bend or break outright.

-Sam

[Sparko]

If that payment is made pursuant to a an election for public office and you don't classify it as such, instead paying for it through personal or corporate accounts, you violate campaign finance laws and it is indeed illegal.

If you think keeping secrets during a campaign is illegal then you will have to convict every politician in Washington. And from what I can tell, the entire scheme was Cohen's idea and plan, Trump probably just did what Cohen told him to do.

You're arguing, in essence, that straw donations aren't illegal because it's not generally illegal to give someone else money.

-Sam

What?

Giving money TO a politician's campaign is not the same as a politician paying some civilian our of his private funds to keep mum about something.

[Sam]

If you think keeping secrets during a campaign is illegal then you will have to convict every politician in Washington. And from what I can tell, the entire scheme was Cohen's idea and plan, Trump probably just did what Cohen told him to do.




What?

Giving money TO a politician's campaign is not the same as a politician paying some civilian our of his private funds to keep mum about something.

You're gonna have to look up "in-kind donation". Paying someone to hush up, for the purposes of a campaign, is giving a monetary equivalent to that person's campaign. And, as such, must be disclosed and documented. Trump and Cohen didn't disclose or document that payment because doing so would make the very thing they were trying to keep secret at least semi-pubic. And when they falsified business records after the election to repay Cohen's expenses, they added to the illegality.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

You're gonna have to look up "in-kind donation". Paying someone to hush up, for the purposes of a campaign, is giving a monetary equivalent to that person's campaign. And, as such, must be disclosed and documented. Trump and Cohen didn't disclose or document that payment because doing so would make the very thing they were trying to keep secret at least semi-pubic. And when they falsified business records after the election to repay Cohen's expenses, they added to the illegality.

-Sam

Perhaps there should be a trial with actual witnesses and evidence.

[Sparko]

You're gonna have to look up "in-kind donation". Paying someone to hush up, for the purposes of a campaign, is giving a monetary equivalent to that person's campaign. And, as such, must be disclosed and documented. Trump and Cohen didn't disclose or document that payment because doing so would make the very thing they were trying to keep secret at least semi-pubic. And when they falsified business records after the election to repay Cohen's expenses, they added to the illegality.

-Sam

So by paying for Stormy's silence Trump was donating money to his campaign illegally?

[Sam]

Perhaps there should be a trial with actual witnesses and evidence.

Given that you began this thread, I wouldn't think you'd be adverse to discussion about the merits of the underlying charges prior to the conclusion of the trial. Regardless, Sparko (via Turley) is making a specific claim, that "personal or corporate" payments to silence a story are not illegal. In fact, they certainly can be and, indeed, the specific payments under discussion have already led to Michael Cohen's conviction, indicating that they clearly were illegal.

-Sam