This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Surely his company also pays state taxes.
If only there were some way to know what sort of taxes he paid!
More options
Context Copy link
I was responding specifically to the OP's claim; the reports I have seen have referenced business records, which might be something other than taxes.
We of course don't know yet precisely what the allegations are, but this does not strike me as particularly convincing. I would think that "legal expenses" are expenses paid for legal services. Why should payment pursuant to an NDA be a "legal expense" if payment pursuant to other contracts are not? Note that I am not arguing that Trump is or is not guilty, nor that the prosecution is or is not legitimate.
I would read "cost incurred in connection with" etc as costs related to negotiation, etc, etc, etc, but not the payment of the settlement itself. Just as legal costs (and attorneys fees, when available) are awarded to plaintiffs separately from the underlying recovery.
Edit: As it turns out, the DA's factual allegations are here. It claims:
You're right, I did not see that. But as you noted, that is a federal law, and we don't know what NY law says
"Retainer agreement" has a pretty clear and accepted meaning under the law. A lawyer can't even ethically bill a client without a signed written letter of engagement or a signed retainer agreement. A simple contract in the form of an offer and acceptance does not constitute a retainer agreement. Moreover, in the law:
In re Montgomery Drilling Co., 121 BR 32, 37 (Bankr. Court, ED Ca 1990)
Note that all involve some sort of advance payment, which was not the case here. Also note that the link you provide is not to a legal dictionary. I would be very surprised if his attorneys make this argument.
As you note, all they need show is that he intended to commit another crime, rather than that he attempted or did commit another crime.
Even if they have to show he committed a crime, the fact that he is presumed innocent does not mean that he has to be convicted; the jury must merely find that he in fact committed another crime. And, that might well be very simple: If, for example, the payment to Daniels was legally required to be reported as a campaign contribution (a matter of law), then the court will simply instruct the jury, very roughly, "if you find that defendant committed the crime of falsifying business records, you must then determine whether that was a felony or a misdemeanor. If you find that defendant failed to report the payment as a campaign contribution, then you must find the defendant guilty of a felony." Were this a statute that required a prior conviction, that would of course be different.
Lying about non-crimes is actionable, but it is only a misdemeanor.
More options
Context Copy link
So the books and records of the Trump Organization show the payments to Cohen (which would ultimately go to Stormy Daniels) as a corporate legal expense. That would end up being claimed as a business expense on the corporate tax return.
I think you could argue that Cohen negotiating a hush money agreement with Stormy Daniels was legal work, in which case he could bill the actual hush money as a disbursement, and paying a lawyer's bill including disbursements could be included as a "legal expense" in the accounts. But it would be the Trump Organization paying Trump's personal legal expenses, which would need to be accounted for as an employee fringe benefit. I am not familiar with US tax law, but in the UK that would be taxable on the employee (i.e. Trump).
The work Cohen did to negotiate the deal is obviously legal work. But the disbursement isn’t. The whole point of the law is to prevent the hiding of iffy transactions through that sort of subterfuge. Eg: A gangster who has his lawyer hire a hit man, or buy heroin, or bribe a politician, and then reimburses him for his "legal expenses."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link