ScratchPad: 2024-05-07 Tu: Janeway on Kurtz on Techno-Monopoly: Mickey Kaus on Trump Above the Law; & Ken Klippenstein Tries to Do the Bari Weiss Flounce...
ScratchPad: 2024-05-07 Tu: Janeway on Kurtz on Techno-Monopoly: Mickey Kaus on Trump Above the Law; & Ken Klippenstein Tries to Do the Bari Weiss Flounce...
Maybe change that $100 billion back to $100 million (just the one occurrence). These days, one never knows. Someone might be throwing around real money.
What is interesting to me about this whole payoff/fraud case is that as the Trumpistas note, he could have paid off Ms. Daniels out of his personal accounts and avoided the whole mess. It wasn't the sleaze, it wasn't the payout It was his lifelong refusal to pay for services rendered that caused his somniferous humiliation.
There wasn't any suggestion that he pay Daniels for sex at the time, if that is what you are implying. It was the need to cover up the need to keep her story silenced during his election run. Pecker was concerned about violating FEC rules on donations [in kind] and therefore Trump tried to cover it up by using methods to hide the payments to Pecker, via Cohen. It was the fraudulent bookkeeping that tripped him up. As they say, "The coverup is always worse than the crime.")
Now that SCOTUS has legalized official crimes by POTUS, we will see if the result is the opposite of what the "conservative" judges claim, as the Classified Documents case in on indefinite hold and if Trump wins teh election, will he attempt to quash the case or attempt to stay in power like Netanyahu to avoid an eventual criminal trial?
Sorry, I was unclear. IANAL but my understanding is that if Trump has just paid for her silence out of his own funds, without requiring Cohen to create a home equity loan, it would have been legal. It was postponing the payments and forged documents that caused the problem.
I didn't mean to suggest sex for money. or vice versa.
In that case, yes. As long as he paid for it directly he would have been OK. This case could not have been brought. He might have been exposed for paying to hide her claims, and that might have influenced the election. It wouldn't have been criminal.
Ironic, as it has been suggested he expected to lose and therefore make money from the run. Now he is liable for criminal actions that he must find ways to avoid to keep him out of jail.
Maybe it's just me, but this is a pretty stupid column. I honestly don't know what 'The Intercept' is and from reading this, don't care. As for Mickey Kaus, he's just another one who tasted the Trump cult drink and lost his mind.
Professor DeLong, you can do much better than this.
lead or lede?
It’s a crying shame that you have to spend time on stuff like this.
Maybe change that $100 billion back to $100 million (just the one occurrence). These days, one never knows. Someone might be throwing around real money.
Thx. Done... Brad
What is interesting to me about this whole payoff/fraud case is that as the Trumpistas note, he could have paid off Ms. Daniels out of his personal accounts and avoided the whole mess. It wasn't the sleaze, it wasn't the payout It was his lifelong refusal to pay for services rendered that caused his somniferous humiliation.
There wasn't any suggestion that he pay Daniels for sex at the time, if that is what you are implying. It was the need to cover up the need to keep her story silenced during his election run. Pecker was concerned about violating FEC rules on donations [in kind] and therefore Trump tried to cover it up by using methods to hide the payments to Pecker, via Cohen. It was the fraudulent bookkeeping that tripped him up. As they say, "The coverup is always worse than the crime.")
Now that SCOTUS has legalized official crimes by POTUS, we will see if the result is the opposite of what the "conservative" judges claim, as the Classified Documents case in on indefinite hold and if Trump wins teh election, will he attempt to quash the case or attempt to stay in power like Netanyahu to avoid an eventual criminal trial?
Sorry, I was unclear. IANAL but my understanding is that if Trump has just paid for her silence out of his own funds, without requiring Cohen to create a home equity loan, it would have been legal. It was postponing the payments and forged documents that caused the problem.
I didn't mean to suggest sex for money. or vice versa.
In that case, yes. As long as he paid for it directly he would have been OK. This case could not have been brought. He might have been exposed for paying to hide her claims, and that might have influenced the election. It wouldn't have been criminal.
Ironic, as it has been suggested he expected to lose and therefore make money from the run. Now he is liable for criminal actions that he must find ways to avoid to keep him out of jail.
Maybe it's just me, but this is a pretty stupid column. I honestly don't know what 'The Intercept' is and from reading this, don't care. As for Mickey Kaus, he's just another one who tasted the Trump cult drink and lost his mind.
Professor DeLong, you can do much better than this.