- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Asking this again re: the indictment
Posted on 4/5/23 at 10:50 am
Posted on 4/5/23 at 10:50 am
Can anyone explain what is false in the business records of the Trump organization?
I'm not asking about who should have paid or whether it should have been paid. I'm talking about the alleged underlying crime. Falsification of business records.
If you pick up the financial statements and they show...dates, payees, amounts. What is inaccurate about that. As far as I have seen, there is nothing inaccurate in the amounts, the dates of payments, the payee being Michael Cohen, and Michael Cohen being a lawyer submitting bills to support the notation "legal services"
I'm asking legitimately because I can't figure it out. What is false about those records?
It seems to me that what bragg is really trying to say is that the Trump organization never should have made the payments that they made and that the invoices submitted by Cohen or not legitimate. But how does that make the business records themselves false or inaccurate? They are still the business records of the organization. They still match up 100% with the actual payments made.
I'm not asking about who should have paid or whether it should have been paid. I'm talking about the alleged underlying crime. Falsification of business records.
If you pick up the financial statements and they show...dates, payees, amounts. What is inaccurate about that. As far as I have seen, there is nothing inaccurate in the amounts, the dates of payments, the payee being Michael Cohen, and Michael Cohen being a lawyer submitting bills to support the notation "legal services"
I'm asking legitimately because I can't figure it out. What is false about those records?
It seems to me that what bragg is really trying to say is that the Trump organization never should have made the payments that they made and that the invoices submitted by Cohen or not legitimate. But how does that make the business records themselves false or inaccurate? They are still the business records of the organization. They still match up 100% with the actual payments made.
4
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:02 am to Ex-Popcorn
I think Bragg’s contention is it is false because it wasn’t a legitimate attorney expense, it was reimbursing Cohen for him paying Daniels himself. Trump did it that way with the intent to hid the true nature of the payment.
ETA - I’m pretty sure Cohen himself admitted it wasn’t a legitimate attorney expense he billed for. Not that he’s a credible witness.
ETA - I’m pretty sure Cohen himself admitted it wasn’t a legitimate attorney expense he billed for. Not that he’s a credible witness.
This post was edited on 4/5/23 at 11:06 am
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:04 am to Ex-Popcorn
IMHO the 'falsification' stems from the Attorney invoice(s). How would any Accounting Clerk processing the Accounts Payable know the Attorney Bills aren't accurate?
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:07 am to BunnyBitness
I'm not disagreeing. That's exactly what he's trying to do. But that does not make the business records themselves false. Everything matches up.
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:08 am to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
They still match up 100% with the actual payments made.
But they don't.
Cohen was paid like double what he paid, for tax purposes. And they did it by claiming it was a retainer, AFTER the services were rendered.
It's not a slam dunk but the scheme is clear. It was clear before the indictment (via Cohen's plea) but the statement of facts confirms the allegations and angle.
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:08 am to TomJoadGhost
The indictment rests in my mind on the fact that there was no formal retainer agreement in place. But the summary and Cohen's own words suggest that he understood that one was in place. I keep telling SFP that this is Bragg telling an attorney how he must be paid. He gets away with this and even if there is a retainer in place he would have Carte Blanche to look at ANY attorney or business and determine what fees are legal or not.
If my client paid me with chickens instead of money, would Bragg say that it was not a legal expense if I said, yep, love me some yard bird?
If my client paid me with chickens instead of money, would Bragg say that it was not a legal expense if I said, yep, love me some yard bird?
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
en was paid like double what he paid, for tax purposes. And they did it by claiming it was a retainer, AFTER the services were rendered.
Pretty certain retainers need to be refreshed again from time to time if they are used during the course of ongoing legal work.
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:13 am to KiwiHead
quote:
I keep telling SFP that this is Bragg telling an attorney how he must be paid. He gets away with this and even if there is a retainer in place he would have Carte Blanche to look at ANY attorney or business and determine what fees are legal or not.
Some of this depends on how the jurisdiction determines the status of payments.
Retainers are for prospective representation, at least in LA. The Trump payments were inflated and for a prior reimbursement.
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:15 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Pretty certain retainers need to be refreshed again from time to time if they are used during the course of ongoing legal work.
The allegations in the statement of facts don't support this argument.
If those allegations are true, this was a specific scheme for the payments.
It will be interesting to see how Trump did historically pay Cohen. I'm not sure if they had him on a retainer prior to the scheme
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:20 am to SlowFlowPro
I think the historical ways that Trump paid Cohen is going to be important. Regardless, how is any of this a crime - paying Stormy Daniels or paying Cohen the way he did? It's total bullshite.
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
those allegations are true, this was a specific scheme for the payments.
Curious how these payments are different than two parties say, settling out of court, and the condition of the settlement is a non-disclosure/non-disparagement agreement. Is NY suggesting that two people cannot make such arrangements without being guilty of bribery?
Also I have to laugh at this entire charade because politicians all accept lobby money which is just a fancy way of saying bribe. This is a fricking joke.
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:23 am to SlowFlowPro
Yeah ideally you want that retainer agreement in place before you perform. But, Cohen by his own correspondence to the TO says this fee is part of the retainer agreement....at least in the summary.....and he refers to that agreement before the first payment is made.
If that's the case, this makes Cohen look incompetent in that he performs the NDA, informs Trump of it after and then says I'll draw up this retainer agreement to have a record of the transactions and reimbursement. In my mind that would clear Trump and the TO of wrongdoing and open up Cohen for a malpractice suit.
If that's the case, this makes Cohen look incompetent in that he performs the NDA, informs Trump of it after and then says I'll draw up this retainer agreement to have a record of the transactions and reimbursement. In my mind that would clear Trump and the TO of wrongdoing and open up Cohen for a malpractice suit.
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:23 am to partyboy1930
It is total bullshite because the law is total, vague bullshite
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:25 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Curious how these payments are different than two parties say, settling out of court, and the condition of the settlement is a non-disclosure/non-disparagement agreement. Is NY suggesting that two people cannot make such arrangements without being guilty of bribery?
No?
The initial payment to Stormy didn't violate the NY law. If Trump wrote Cohen a $130k check.there would be no angle, either
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No?
Seems to me to be the same thing. Paying someone to remain quiet is the same as bribery.
The main motivation for many companies to settle is to avoid bad publicity. How is that any different?
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:32 am to Robin Masters
The difference is the structure of the repayments. Your hypos don't even have a third party
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The difference is the structure of the repayments. Your hypos don't even have a third party
You’re being willfully obtuse and trying to hide in the weeds. Typical fricking lawyer. My wife is a master at this.
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But they don't.
Cohen was paid like double what he paid, for tax purposes. And they did it by claiming it was a retainer, AFTER the services were rendered.
False. They do match up. What you are saying is that they should have known that the invoices were inflated and I should not have paid that amount. But none of that is relevant to whether or not the records are accurate and every single dollar was paid into Cohen's accounts. Just as they are noted. There is nothing false.
What you are saying is that they basically conspired to inflate the amount of Cohen's services. That may be true. But that does not make the records themselves false. The financial statements simply track the amount of money that was walking out the door.
This post was edited on 4/5/23 at 11:53 am
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:52 am to Robin Masters
quote:
You’re being willfully obtuse and trying to hide in the weeds. Typical fricking lawyer.
Your hypotheticals literally do not apply as a comparison because the alleged crimes are from the third party not the two parties directly transacting initially
This post was edited on 4/5/23 at 11:53 am
Posted on 4/5/23 at 11:56 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Your hypotheticals literally do not apply as a comparison because the alleged crimes are from the third party not the two parties directly transacting initially
Who’s the 3rd party? Trumps attorney? You’re suggesting a lawyer can’t negotiate an out of court settlement?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News