I think your getting close pat. There isn't anything wrong with NDAs and paying for them, other than maybe the reason you need one in the first place. Putting that aside, celebrities and rich assholes do it all the time. Trump was both a celebrity and a rich asshole and he could legally pay any porn star he wanted to do behind his pregnant wife's back. Have at it. It's all good. But when you become a candidate for office you get to be subject to a whole new set of laws that pretty much most of the country isn't subject to. It's just for all those special people both republican and democrat and all the other smaller parties who run for public office. That's where it gets messy with making hush money payments and trying to hide them.
Magas.
Except that he didn't use campaign funds to pay for the NDA.
Do these special laws also include insider trading laws for the Trump hating Nancy?
You mean the jury.
Honestly I don't know much about campaign finance laws myself so you'll have to educate yourself.
More likely his house isn't firebombed.
My understanding of the original charge (with the expired statute of limitations) was resurrected because Trump DID NOT charge his campaign for the hush money. Their contention is that the NDA should have been paid by the campaign. The fact that it wasn't is what made it a crime. Sounds backwards to me.
www.foxnews.com
www.foxnews.com
What is your role in all the court cases? I am a little fuzzy on what you do, precisely.
The only cancellation that goes on is from the left. It is part of their culture. I did think that perhaps the foreman might hold out, because he reads the Daily Mail. However, if he lives in a 90% Democrat area and the rest of the jury gang up on him, people cave into peer pressure, thinking about their own short term interests. Just look at what happened in the George Floyd case. Riots outside and expert witnesses having their properties trashed. The jury feared for their lives. Guilty! On everything! Anything! In the mind of the jurors: "I've got a family and children. I can't jeapodise their livelihoods because I am forced into jury service where a baying mob are outside the court. I give myself a pass on the moral ineptitude because life and death factors are at play."
Since you have issues understanding Campaign finance laws, lets try tax law. Personally I think this is the issue the jury understood and based their conviction on.
That's a good thing. It has worked to my benefit for many years.
Pat, you have an insurance background. Who insures the Government? What you characterize as a slush fund is actually a government agency. They not only settle sexual harassment type cases but they handle all sorts of claims against not only politicians, but other gov. workers and agencies as well. They also handle retaliation claims so I guess if trumps elected their budget will need to be tripled or more. So much for saving YOUR money.
Do you mean like Hunter Biden putting prostitutes down as admin, or whatever it was?
You are almost there. Trump's lawyers were arguing that the payments were a retainer and therefore a legal expense. It was only Cohen who said it was for hush money expenses. And that is the explanation.
By "they" we are talking about other people, not Trump. And several of these people are involved in a shakedown of Trump for regular hush money payments with different women and a doorman. Futhermore, Cohen, who both lies and steals from Trump, changes his story on Trump, wants Trump to go to jail, and lies to congress, etc etc.
Trump and Conservatives are all about reducing government, not increasing it and its costs. And Fani Willis treats everything as a slush fund. She spent public money on all sorts of swag, Macbook Airs, iPads etc, when the money was supposed to be going to a Youth Empowerment centre.
if that's what he did, yes.
Not a credible one where there was no retainer, and the Comptroller testified that it was a reimbursement. What the lawyer says is not evidence, only what the witnesses say.
Fani wasn't a part of this case and I don't think she spent any that money at her golf motels.
Many levels, Federal, State, Local, Town, County, Municipal, Village, etc. All with their own sets of laws.
It is a slush fund because it was created to "indemnify" members of Congress and employees from lawsuits such as sexual harassment. So the question is - when the slush fund/agency pays out a settlement on behalf of a member of Congress, is that a gift? Seems like it would be to me. If the slush fund didn't pay the settlement, then the member would have to pay it. So I'm just wondering what your legal perspective is. I think there are insurance policies that companies or people like Trump can purchase to pay awards like this on their behalf but in that case, the person himself is paying the premium for the policy. In the case of the slush fund, I personally am paying the award (at gunpoint mind you because I seriously object) since every penny the government spends comes from ME and other tax payers. So since the person covered by this "policy" doesn't actually pay for it, is the cost of the "agency" allocated as income to the people it covers? Other insurance policies are considered income when paid for by the employer.
