Trump-Stormy Daniels settlement at heart of potential NY DA indictment didn't violate

**QP!** · 03-21-2023, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet

neither......it appears to be a man paying his bills to his lawyer.....

OMG the guy who pretends to be a lawyer again shows he knows nothing about the law or how good lawyer conduct business.

Trump payment to Cohen is a clear flow thru payment. To argue it is not is to say Lawyers pay off their clients problems out of the goodness of their heart and all the client has to do is pay them the legal costs they incurred in doing so.

That is so stupid only you could accept it. They will have clear evidence the National Enquirer paid to Catch and Kill the story for Trump. Then Cohen made the payment. Was it charity? is he writing it off? Is he ok with getting legal fees that he will pay taxes on, while he just donates money to Stormy he will not?

you as a lawyer, if you are one, look at all that and think 'yes that looks perfectly reasonable to me and i would argue it as his lawyer to defend him' and that is because you either are not a lawyer or you are this lawyer or have the same intellect as her.

**Jarod** · 03-21-2023, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by QP!

OMG the guy who pretends to be a lawyer again shows he knows nothing about the law or how good lawyer conduct business.

Trump payment to Cohen is a clear flow thru payment. To argue it is not is to say Lawyers pay off their clients problems out of the goodness of their heart and all the client has to do is pay them the legal costs they incurred in doing so.

That is so stupid only you could accept it. They will have clear evidence the National Enquirer paid to Catch and Kill the story for Trump. Then Cohen made the payment. Was it charity? is he writing it off? Is he ok with getting legal fees that he will pay taxes on, while he just donates money to Stormy he will not?

you as a lawyer, if you are one, look at all that and think 'yes that looks perfectly reasonable to me and i would argue it as his lawyer to defend him' and that is because you either are not a lawyer or you are this lawyer or have the same intellect as her.

He knows better, he just lies a lot

**QP!** · 03-21-2023, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Jarod

He knows better, he just lies a lot

I don't know man.

I mean, I want to believe he is not as stupid as he pretends to be and it is just a game and lies, but at times when he gets more serious in his posts he gives off a real Marjorie Greene vibe, as what he says is just so dumb and yet he seems to think it is a good point.

But i am open to believing he is not that dumb, if we ever get evidence of it.

**Jarod** · 03-21-2023, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by QP!

I don't know man.

I mean, I want to believe he is not as stupid as he pretends to be and it is just a game and lies, but at times when he gets more serious in his posts he gives off a real Marjorie Greene vibe, as what he says is just so dumb and yet he seems to think it is a good point.

But i am open to believing he is not that dumb, if we ever get evidence of it.

Maybe

**Nordberg** · 03-21-2023, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by ExpressLane

You loved Clinton who head banged a very young WH aide. What Trump did was years before he ran for President.

Why do you presume to speak for me? I liked Clinton's politics. He did a good job and cut the debt while doing it. Lewinsky, unlike Trump and Epstein girls, was above the age of consent. I do not approve of a guy risking so much for so little.

**ExpressLane** · 03-21-2023, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by Jarod

Judges are charged, under the constitution, with interpreting the law and determining its constitutionality. How the law applies in different circumstances is part of interpreting the laws. You need to go back to 6th grade civics if you do not understand that. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

Judge don't get to rewrite the law they only get to determine if it is Constitutional or not. Separation of power judges don't get to write law they can only determine if it is legal or not. If you don't understand that you are a crappy lawyer. The Judges in 4 swing states rewrote portions of the law in violation of their Constitutional authority.

BTW Marbury v Madison DOES NOT give the court the authority to create law. They only get to rule on if the law is legal or not. No one questioned if the existing election laws were legal or not. The courts that changed the law and rewrote portions of it did so illegally, tainting the election results in 4 key swing states.

**Jarod** · 03-21-2023, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by ExpressLane

Judge don't get to rewrite the law they only get to determine if it is Constitutional or not. Separation of power judges don't get to write law they can only determine if it is legal or not. If you don't understand that you are a crappy lawyer. The Judges in 4 swing states rewrote portions of the law in violation of their Constitutional authority.

Sorry you are so poorly educated, it is the judicial branches duty to interperate the law.

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

— Marbury, 5 U.S. at 177.

**ExpressLane** · 03-21-2023, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Nordberg

Why do you presume to speak for me? I liked Clinton's politics. He did a good job and cut the debt while doing it. Lewinsky, unlike Trump and Epstein girls, was above the age of consent. I do not approve of a guy risking so much for so little.

See I was right.

Clinton was Monica's boss and was over 20 years he senior. That would have got Clinton canned in and major corporation in America. You have no proof that Trump ever had a sexual encounter with anyone he supervised or that was a minor. Proof of Clinton's sexual relationship was all over Monica's blue dress.

**ExpressLane** · 03-21-2023, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Jarod

Sorry you are so poorly educated, it is the judicial branches duty to interperate the law.

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

— Marbury, 5 U.S. at 177.

Now show me where it is in the province of the Judaical Department to WRITE the law. I'll wait....

Powers of Congress
Congress, as one of the three coequal branches of government, is ascribed significant powers by the Constitution. All legislative power in the government is vested in Congress, meaning that it is the only part of the government that can make new laws or change existing laws.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the...xisting%20laws.

BTW I know a Federal Judge that is a close friend. He graduated from Yale Law. He is on senior status in the Northern District of Texas and teaches a SMU law school Should I ask him if a judge can rewrite law? He calls me for medical opinions all the time I'm sure he won't mind. My wife was his court reporter for 35 years.

**Jarod** · 03-21-2023, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by ExpressLane

Now show me where it is in the province of the Judaical Department to WRITE the law. I'll wait....

Its not, they interpret

**PostmodernProphet** · 03-21-2023, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by floridafan

Is there anything you wont spin or lie about?

given the fact you haven't got a clue of what this conversation is about, you should go back to your corner and masturbate........its the only thing you are any good at.....

**PostmodernProphet** · 03-21-2023, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Jarod

Listen I am not taking anyone who claims the election was stolen or unconstitutional seriously anymore. You have 0 creditability. You are simply a conspiracy theory nutter.

lol....who gives a fuck who you think is credible, Desh.......

**PostmodernProphet** · 03-21-2023, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders

Invoices that charge for work that wasn't done is just fine by you it seems.

more things you idiots make up on the fly......

**PostmodernProphet** · 03-21-2023, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Jarod

Judges are charged, under the constitution, with interpreting the law and determining its constitutionality. How the law applies in different circumstances is part of interpreting the laws. You need to go back to 6th grade civics if you do not understand that. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

irrelevant, given the fact that the judges did not change the election procedures in Wisconsin, Georgia or Arizona.....election officials did......

**PostmodernProphet** · 03-21-2023, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by QP!

OMG the guy who pretends to be a lawyer again shows he knows nothing about the law or how good lawyer conduct business.

I am sorry you have no clue what is going on here.......but I don't give a fuck what you pretend is happening.....

there was a negotiated agreement. Cohen paid the consideration and billed it to Trump as client costs. Trump paid the bill. When I invoice clients for fees and costs I pay taxes on the fees. Why would I pay taxes on the costs? They are not my income. It is also not a contribution. The client is paying me back......