lobster Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 (edited) On 1/5/2025 at 2:46 PM, SoundOfSilence said: Rock, my original post was that the payment was lawful. Now, Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, was convicted for making an unlawful campaign contribution when he paid the hush moneys. That means, Rock, that the payment of the hush moneys was for a purpose benefitting the campaign. Since it was a purpose benefitting the campaign either campaign funds, or Trump's own money, could have been used. Either would be lawful under US law. If I recall, this vital piece of evidence was withheld from the jury. Actually, both the inherent bias in the judge and the jury violated Trump's constitutional right to a fair trial. The judge was connected to the Biden campaign in some way (or something like that) and several members of the jury had posted anti-Trump posts on social media. But I digress. The reason that Trump wasn't prosecuted for a campaign violation was because the payment of hush moneys was a lawful campaign purpose. Another court has already ruled as such. They had to, else Michael Cohen couldn't have violated the law regarding campaign contributions. The alleged false accounting was reconstructing a monthly retainer paid to Michael Cohen and saying it really went to the payment of a loan and not a monthly retainer. Notwithstanding that neither the timing nor the amount of these payments corresponded to the $130,000 hush moneys. But it gets worse for the corrupt NY court. If the retainer payments were really the repayment of a loan (as alleged by the prosecution) there would have been nothing illegal in that. No need to conceal anything. No false accounting. It was a payment to Michael Cohen which was lawful out of either Trump's or the campaign funds. So, no. So yes, if what he was doing is, as you claim all above board, then he would have included it in the accounts as what it was rather than trying to mask it as something else. But then paying hush money and marking it in the accounts as hush money is a bit counterproductive, either way marking it as something else is a criminal offence Edited January 6 by lobster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Just now, lobster said: So yes, if what he was doing is, as you claim all above board, then he would have included it in the accounts as what it was rather than trying to madk it as something else Oh come on! What do you think the purpose of paying hush money is? To then disclose in accounts that will become public record "Hush money payment to equine looking porn star who is alleging that I banged her behind my wife's back." False accounting is not just getting the accounts wrong, Rock. It has to be for a fraudulent purpose. One of the arguments run by the crooked NY prosecutor was that the purpose was to conceal a crime (or something like that). But the problem with that, Rock, is that once the moneys came from Trump or his campaign there is no longer a crime by Michale Cohen. If he didn't pay the moneys, there is no longer a campaign finance violation in which case there is no longer a fraudulent purpose. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 1 minute ago, SoundOfSilence said: Oh come on! What do you think the purpose of paying hush money is? To then disclose in accounts that will become public record "Hush money payment to equine looking porn star who is alleging that I banged her behind my wife's back." False accounting is not just getting the accounts wrong, Rock. It has to be for a fraudulent purpose. One of the arguments run by the crooked NY prosecutor was that the purpose was to conceal a crime (or something like that). But the problem with that, Rock, is that once the moneys came from Trump or his campaign there is no longer a crime by Michale Cohen. If he didn't pay the moneys, there is no longer a campaign finance violation in which case there is no longer a fraudulent purpose. He didnt get it wrong did he ? Someone if not him marked it as something else, on purpose, that is false accounting however you want to wrap it up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Just now, lobster said: He didnt get it wrong did he ? Someone if not him marked it as something else, on purpose, that is false accounting however you want to wrap it up No, it isn't Rock. Go and read the law. False accounting requires more than just getting the accounts wrong. I know you like to make up the law and Ukrainian towns But your fantasies don't equate with reality. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 4 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said: No, it isn't Rock. Go and read the law. False accounting requires more than just getting the accounts wrong. I know you like to make up the law and Ukrainian towns But your fantasies don't equate with reality. Yes it requires you to get them wrong on purpose, which isn't in dispute, submitting public records which are also know to be wrong is also an offence, the whole point of submitting for public scrutiny is that they can be scrutinised, which is impossible if they are deliberately wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 3 minutes ago, lobster said: Yes it requires you to get them wrong on purpose, which isn't in dispute, submitting public records which are also know to be wrong is also an offence, Under what statute Rock? 3 minutes ago, lobster said: the whole point of submitting for public scrutiny is that they can be scrutinised, which is impossible if they are deliberately wrong The accounts give a precise and accurate reflection of his financial position, Rock. Which is the sole purpose of accounts. Who has been defrauded? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 1 hour ago, SoundOfSilence said: Under what statute Rock? The accounts give a precise and accurate reflection of his financial position, Rock. Which is the sole purpose of accounts. Who has been defrauded? You keep saying defrauded, I keep saying false accountancy, though they may over lap in some instances, they are not at all the same thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 26 minutes ago, lobster said: You keep saying defrauded, I keep saying false accountancy, though they may over lap in some instances, they are not at all the same thing I keep saying defrauded, Rock, because unlike you, rather than using the force, I read the law. NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov SECTION 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE K, ARTICLE 175 § 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree. A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony. Therefore, you need an intent to defraud. It is one of the elements of the statute. I repeat my question which you either didn't understand, couldn't answer or rudely ignored, who was defrauded? You will also note the reference to covering up a crime. To ensure you don't miss the point, Rock, the statute refers to it as 'conceal the commission thereof'. Which is an argument the prosecutor ran. The crime being Michael Cohen's illegal contribution to Trump's campaign. As I have explained repeatedly, this crime only exists as long as Cohen used his own money. As soon as it is paid by Trump, or his campaign, it becomes a lawful payment. That means there is no crime to cover up. Now, I don't want to test everyone's patience by having to repeat myself again. Unless you have that statute that you relied on, which I asked you for, or you can explain who you feel was defrauded and why, then I don't have anything further to add. I am still waiting on the name of your Ukrainian town Rock. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 (edited) 29 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said: I keep saying defrauded, Rock, because unlike you, rather than using the force, I read the law. NYS Open Legislation | NYSenate.gov SECTION 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree Penal (PEN) CHAPTER 40, PART 3, TITLE K, ARTICLE 175 § 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree. A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony. Therefore, you need an intent to defraud. It is one of the elements of the statute. I repeat my question which you either didn't understand, couldn't answer or rudely ignored, who was defrauded? You will also note the reference to covering up a crime. To ensure you don't miss the point, Rock, the statute refers to it as 'conceal the commission thereof'. Which is an argument the prosecutor ran. The crime being Michael Cohen's illegal contribution to Trump's campaign. As I have explained repeatedly, this crime only exists as long as Cohen used his own money. As soon as it is paid by Trump, or his campaign, it becomes a lawful payment. That means there is no crime to cover up. Now, I don't want to test everyone's patience by having to repeat myself again. Unless you have that statute that you relied on, which I asked you for, or you can explain who you feel was defrauded and why, then I don't have anything further to add. I am still waiting on the name of your Ukrainian town Rock. You clearly dont for falsifying business records in the 2nd degree. And it doesnt require anyone to be defrauded only your intent to do so, why would you deliberately falsifying records unless you had intent ? Who did he intend to defraud , campaign donors, who didnt provided money in the knowledge that it would giving to an exlover, Even with your somewhat tenuous excuse that this was legal, deliberately covering it up is fraudulent Edited January 6 by lobster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 2 minutes ago, lobster said: You clearly dont for falsifying business records in the 2nd degree. You certainly do Rock. The language to make it first degree is where the fraudulent intent includes the commission of a crime etc. Without those additional criteria it is second degree, but fraudulent intent is still required. Besides, Trump was convicted of the first degree offence. 2 minutes ago, lobster said: And it doesnt require anyone to be defrauded only your intent to do so, why would you deliberately falsifying records unless you had intent ? Because, Rock, the drafters of the legislation were keen to only apply the law to circumstances where someone either, intended to, or caused harm. The prosecutor not only has to prove falsification but an intent to cause harm to others. Actual harm will suffice as proof. You don't underrated intent. As people rarely leave manifestos explaining their intended crimes (other than on a cell phone carelessly left in a burning vehicle) It typically means the prosecution has to prove that you took sufficient steps to defraud people. Intent or actual fraud needs to be identified. You can't just argue "Well, he falsified records so he must have had intent to defraud someone." Your case would be dismissed at half time for failure to address all the elements of the statute. 2 minutes ago, lobster said: Who did he intend to defraud , campaign donors, who didnt provided money in the knowledge that it would giving to an exlover, Are you serious? Donors provide money to be used for any lawful campaign purpose. We already know this is a lawful campaign purpose. Michael Cohen could not have made a campaign contribution otherwise. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Apparently, Trump's election win has been certified. Camel Face had to stand next to Mike Johnson and declare Trump the winner. Who says there is no such thing as karma? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 (edited) 18 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said: You certainly do Rock. The language to make it first degree is where the fraudulent intent includes the commission of a crime etc. Without those additional criteria it is second degree, but fraudulent intent is still required. Besides, Trump was convicted of the first degree offence. Because, Rock, the drafters of the legislation were keen to only apply the law to circumstances where someone either, intended to, or caused harm. The prosecutor not only has to prove falsification but an intent to cause harm to others. Actual harm will suffice as proof. You don't underrated intent. As people rarely leave manifestos explaining their intended crimes (other than on a cell phone carelessly left in a burning vehicle) It typically means the prosecution has to prove that you took sufficient steps to defraud people. Intent or actual fraud needs to be identified. You can't just argue "Well, he falsified records so he must have had intent to defraud someone." Your case would be dismissed at half time for failure to address all the elements of the statute. Are you serious? Donors provide money to be used for any lawful campaign purpose. We already know this is a lawful campaign purpose. Michael Cohen could not have made a campaign contribution otherwise. How many ex lovers can he give money to out of campaign funds before it becomes fraud ? It's a reasonable question, you seem to think one is fine, what about 10, would that be to many, you must have a number in mind. What if he gave his wife a 100 grand to not say he snores, would that be a legitimate campaign funding. There is no other reasonable description of what he did other than bribery with money that wasn't his, that sounds like a crime to me Edited January 6 by lobster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 6 minutes ago, lobster said: How many ex lovers can he give money to out of campaign funds before it becomes fraud ? You'd need to check the election laws Rock. I don't think there is any limit on it provided it satisfies the criteria to be a justified election expense. Paraphrasing, from memory, it is where the candidate is protecting his reputation and the need to protect the reputation arises out of the fact that he is a candidate. Something like that. Fraud either is or isn't. A single transaction could be enough. Quantity has nothing to do with it. It is the nature of the act. 6 minutes ago, lobster said: It's a reasonable question, you seem to think one is fine, what about 10, would that be to many, you must have a number in mind. I'm sorry to disappoint you but it is not something that I've actually thought about. I have zero interest in Trump's private life. It's none of my business. Provided it doesn't involve kids of course. 6 minutes ago, lobster said: What if he gave his wife a 100 grand to not say he snores, would that be a legitimate campaign funding. As I understand it, the test is whether it would harm his candidacy (roughly speaking). If it came out that he is a sleep apnea sufferer I don't think that would derail his campaign. In my view, that would not be a legitimate campaign expense. 6 minutes ago, lobster said: There is no other reasonable description of what he did other than bribery with money that wasn't his, that sounds like a crime to me You are entitled to your opinion Rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 (edited) 4 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said: You'd need to check the election laws Rock. I don't think there is any limit on it provided it satisfies the criteria to be a justified election expense. Paraphrasing, from memory, it is where the candidate is protecting his reputation and the need to protect the reputation arises out of the fact that he is a candidate. Something like that. Fraud either is or isn't. A single transaction could be enough. Quantity has nothing to do with it. It is the nature of the act. I'm sorry to disappoint you but it is not something that I've actually thought about. I have zero interest in Trump's private life. It's none of my business. Provided it doesn't involve kids of course. As I understand it, the test is whether it would harm his candidacy (roughly speaking). If it came out that he is a sleep apnea sufferer I don't think that would derail his campaign. In my view, that would not be a legitimate campaign expense. You are entitled to your opinion Rock. Ok so he hands over a few million of campaign funds to exloverd, childhood friends who may say he cheated at monopoly and taxi drivers who dropped him off at a brothel and you dont think that counts as fraud ? You are having a laugh Edited January 6 by lobster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 1 minute ago, lobster said: Ok so he hands over a few million of campaign funds to exlover, childhood friends who may say he cheated at monopoly and taxi drivers who dropped him of at a brothel and you dont think that counts as fraud ? You are having a laugh Meanwhile, back in reality, he paid $130,000 to a horsey blackmailer to protect his reputation while he was a political candidate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 1 minute ago, SoundOfSilence said: Meanwhile, back in reality, he paid $130,000 to a horsey blackmailer to protect his reputation while he was a political candidate. You said there was no limit to how many bribes he could use other people's money for , as long as it protected reputation, Clearly you now think there maybe, if it's ok to pay one bribe its clearly ok to pay 100 otherwise your logic collapses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 24 minutes ago, lobster said: You said there was no limit to how many bribes he could use other people's money for , as long as it protected reputation, Clearly you now think there maybe, if it's ok to pay one bribe its clearly ok to pay 100 otherwise your logic collapses Rock, if you have to invent facts to make your argument work you don't have an argument. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 12 minutes ago, SoundOfSilence said: Rock, if you have to invent facts to make your argument work you don't have an argument. I've not invented any facts, I'm exploring how far your logic can be pushed before you admit its failed, as your refusing to answer the question I'm taking that as a tacit admission we have exceeded it by quite some way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 3 minutes ago, lobster said: I've not invented any facts, I'm exploring how far your logic can be pushed before you admit its failed, as your refusing to answer the question I'm taking that as a tacit admission we have exceeded it by quite some way Rock, the topic is Trump's election. Discussing his election campaign probably fits the bill. I am not going to discuss a monopoly game between you and your imaginary friends! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobster Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Just now, SoundOfSilence said: Rock, the topic is Trump's election. Discussing his election campaign probably fits the bill. I am not going to discuss a monopoly game between you and your imaginary friends! Ok, I'm taking the win, you can sulk as much as you like ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 Just now, lobster said: Ok, I'm taking the win, you can sulk as much as you like ! Won't your imaginary friends be sore that you cheated .... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 On 1/6/2025 at 1:07 AM, Campion said: The h1b issue is interesting, as it suggests foreigners getting temporary work visas without immigrating permanently. That's what we need, it's what Arabic countries do to get foreign workers in the oil industry without changing their demographics. Over here the system grants practically everyone a permanent citizenship if they wait long enough, even if they come here illegally and without proper identification. All in the name of their human rights of course. The other thing about Tom Homan that I forgot to mention is that, so I hear, he is going after the child trafficking at the border. As you know, that is a huge source of funds for the globalists. Shutting down their child trafficking operations is the way to go after them. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 6 Share Posted January 6 8 hours ago, Katsika said: I have indeed - it morphed into various companies (BASF/Bayer/Hoechst) after it was sold by GD Searle - I think they then morphed or linked with Pfizer and Monsanto who with the help of the unindicted war criminal D Rumsfeld, managed to get FDA approval for Aspartame. I believe Agent Orange was mainly a Monsanto vile killer, continuing their anti-human agenda. Oh, so you had heard of it then ... 8 hours ago, Katsika said: I feel sick when I see Rockerfeller - the Ludlow Massacre etc. - an event that initiated the cult of the "philanthropist". I wasn't aware of the Ludlow Massacre. I had to look it up. Didn't Henry Ford do a similar thing? I feel sick when I see most globalists. I have to scrub through whenever Hitlery, Obama et el appear on the screen. Just read out the quotes, I'll trust you, I don't need to see these people. So sorry, I should have thought it through before posting those images. 8 hours ago, Katsika said: Critical thinking had to be discouraged/eliminated because "the ability to think systematically, see other perspectives, change your mind when new evidence arises, identify relevant versus irrelevant information, identify and discard logical fallacies, be aware of biases and avoid them, and look beyond the obvious" = danger to the mthfers. Or you could just disbelieve everything government says and be correct 99 percent of the time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katsika Posted January 7 Author Share Posted January 7 22 hours ago, Katsika said: The brain-drain has been ongoing since god knows when - every country in West - where do the various brains mostly go to? In Europe are they just recycled as it were e.g. leave Greece, work/study in London for a few years, return to Greece only to find conditions are even worse, cost of living even higher etc. then return to London etc? (Just talking out loud, I don't expect you to know!). https://rumble.com/v66osed-musks-alter-ego-adrian-dittman-and-his-censorship-spree-video-177.html Musk's Alter Ego (Adrian Dittman) & His Censorship Spree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoundOfSilence Posted January 7 Share Posted January 7 Trump has been fairly quiet since he won the election. Though today, having been certified, he held a press conference. Of course, Russia came up. In particular, the discussion turned to Ukraine in NATO. Trump reiterated that wants to get a deal done. He wants the killing to stop. The rest of Trump's response showed that he completely gets the NATO point. He explained that he understands how Russia would feel nervous having NATO right on its border. He went on to state that he feels that Russia had an agreement there would be no NATO expansion and that the Biden regime broke that agreement which was a very dangerous and stupid thing to do. He didn't stipulate what that agreement was, but I suspect he is referring to the assurances given when Germany unified. However, it does give him an easy path to agreeing to no NATO by honoring an earlier agreement. It seems that Trump allowed idiots like Sebastian Gorka to spout nonsense which the globalists would like so as not to interfere with his certification. Interestingly, Elensky on the Lex Fridman podcast still feels that Ukraine will be admitted to NATO. Stay away from drugs! I wonder if Elensky yet appreciates that any deal is unlikely to involve him. Russia has correctly pointed out he is illegitimate. Plus, he would be breaking his own law of not negotiating with Russia while Putin is president (whatever the Russian title is). Kellog's visit has been called off for now. This may well be because if Elensky won't be around what is the point of talking to him now. I wonder if Elensky's end will be similar to the final scene in Scarface? The Al Pacino version. Of interest Trump brought up the Panama Canal again. He wants it back. He said it is vital for US national security. Apparently, Panama has let it fall into the hands of the Chinese. If the Canal was cut off (explosives), then the US fleet would have to go around South America. I wonder if Trump has been briefed on the Chinese sleeper cells infiltrating the US over its Southern border. There were also a lot of Chinese military based in Canada under Chairman Trudeau. Not sure if they are still there. Maybe there's some truth in the Chinese drone mothership. I doubt it, but clearly Trump has information that China is more of a threat than he perceived in his first term. The bad news is that he doubled down on stupid regarding the Middle East. Threatening Hamas over the Israeli hostages that all hell will break out if they are not released. Has he seen Gaza? How could you possibly make it worse? If levelling Gaza didn't free them how could re-bombing the rubble possibly pose a threat? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.