What about the judges instructions to the officer producing the sentencing report (I can’t find the cite but IIRC the officer can consider any relevant evidence that speaks to the remorse or lack of it, of the felon, but has to consider anything the judge instructs him to) is that public? Will we know if the Merchan has said “check out his Truth Social posts”?
but then again…too much to mention…
Is the sentencing hearing being recorded? I would assume that doing so would be technologically trivial and much easier than if it were done face-to-face. Although I suppose it may be routine to record the hearing.
I hope Merchan has access to the recording (assuming of course one exists). Trump has a history of denying he’s said things that recordings show he has said. I’d like it if in the middle of sentencing Trump claims he never said something, and Merchan nods to a clerk who then plays the video of Trump saying exactly that thing.
Are you talking about the sentencing hearing or the pre-sentencing interview?
Isn’t the $420K an expense to the trump organization? Why would that result in tax revenue to the state? I’m sorry, I’m sure I’m misunderstanding. Can you explain what you mean please?
It was a personal expense for Donald Trump. It should have been entered into the books as personal income and Trump would have paid (or owed) personal income tax on it. They entered it as a business expense in order to avoid paying tax on it.
Why would that matter? This is a report that goes from the probation officer to the judge. At no point after the interview does Trump have a say in the matter.
I think it was a personal expense for Donald Trump and shouldn’t have been entered into any business records at all. Instead, it was entered into business records as a legal expense and almost certainly deducted from the taxable income of the business as a business expense.
That’s exactly what I said.
I assume this is the difference you’re highlighting:
Everything has to be entered into the business records, including the owner’s income. When the owner takes money out of the business as their own personal income it gets recorded as such. That’s how Trump should’ve recorded the payout to Cohen. Then it would have come from his own pocket, he pays/owes personal income tax on it and the business records wouldn’t have been falsified (WRT this case).
Yes, that’s what this case is about. Even without the election interference part, even if Trump just wanted some cash for himself, writing it off as a business expense is cooking the books.
Jordan wants to convene a hearing to question Bragg.
Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who prosecuted former President Donald J. Trump, agreed on Friday to testify before Congress as Republicans seek to discredit Mr. Trump’s conviction. But Mr. Bragg suggested his testimony would need to wait until after Mr. Trump is sentenced next month.
Question Bragg about what, exactly?
I’m betting the questions will be something like, “When did Biden instruct you to file these charges?”
I meant the pre-sentencing interview.
But you bring up a point. I’ve been assuming the actual sentencing will be open to the public in the same way as the trial. True?
The pre-sentencing interview will not be recorded. At least, not in the sense that it will be recorded in order to be used in court or released to the public. Any recording might only be used by the interviewer in compiling the report, in much the same way as handwritten notes might be referred to, and any recording or notes will go no further than the interviewer.
The actual sentencing will be open to the public in much the same way as the trial was. Mostly media, and family if any of Trump’s family decides to show up, but a few seats reserved for the general public, and an overflow room. No video or audio, but texts from reporters in the courtroom, and courtroom sketches illustrating what’s going on. Same as it ever was, as the song says.
Couldn’t it have gone on the books as a nondeductible expense? I know that would be highly unusual, but it would have negated the tax charges, no?
I suspect Cohen set himself up as some form of corporation instead of just a sole proprietorship. I’m guessing (because of the HELOC) that he didn’t treat the payment to Stormy Daniels as a business expense. If Trump had repaid Cohen from his personal account, then (I’m pretty sure) none of this would have been a crime.
(Well, okay, he may have had to set up a payment plan that allowed him to avoid gift tax repercussions, but that should have been doable.)
It seems to me that if the billionaire hadn’t been so cheap that he refused to pay Cohen from his own pocket, he would have avoided this whole mess. (There could have been an election financing violation, but that wouldn’t be tried in New York court, would it? My guess is it wouldn’t have resulted in charges at all.)
The pre-sentencing interview has been completed, though there remains the possibility of a follow-up interview:
Of note:
It’s funny; Al Capone was infamously convicted for tax evasion after getting away with extremely heinous (and violent) crimes for many years. But he was caught because he was trying to avoid tax evasion charges, and asked his lawyer to partially report his income for certain years. Yet that attempt led to his downfall, because the reporting was incomplete and in some ways amounted to a confession. Basically, he knew a lot about how to commit crimes and how to get away with them, but not how to be a legitimate businessman (and he also wasn’t really honest when he was pretending to be honest).
Trump seems to be cut of the same cloth. He doesn’t know how to do business properly (hence his many business failures) and his empire in New York is essentially shut down. This case here is another example of it.
God damn it! Blanche will probably provide some ratfucker with a back door to the Zoom call, so it can be “compromised” and invalidate the ensuing report.
I think Trump also gets a perverse rush out of cheating instead of being honest in any situation where he has the option. Yes, he could have done this all legally and above board but where is the thrill in that? He’s been ripping the government off for years on tax issues, what is one more when they haven’t caught up to him for all the other ones yet?
Considering the slant of the source (from the CNN report), I wonder if their name is John Barron!
Not surprising to me. He’s a bad man, but not the same bad man he plays on TV.