Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy the retainer argument makes no sense at all
This is what Trump claimed this morning:
Link to tweet
This is what Giuliani said to Hannity:
"When I heard of Cohen's retainer for $130,000, he was doing no work for the president. I said, 'Well, that's how he's repaying it, with a little profit and a little margin for paying taxes for Michael.'"
Cohen has claimed he had to raise the $130.000 through a home equity loan to pay off Stormy Daniels, and Trump didn't know about this. If he was on a retainer of $130,000 per month, or over $1.6 million per year, it would be hard to see why he'd need a home equity loan to raise the money. So, it would be fair to assume that his retainer of $130,000 wasn't per year, but per month, so about $11,000 per month.
Suppose Cohen was on a retainer of $11,000 per month. That would be a regular monthly payment for the services he provided. We are supposed to believe that Cohen received payment of the $130,000 by way of his retainer. So, in this example, Cohen used his retainer of $11,000 per month to pay back his home equity loan. That would take a year. And if Cohen used his retainer to pay back his loan, that would mean he wasn't receiving any payment for his services for a whole year, and he never even mentioned this to Donald Trump.
In addition, Giuliani says Cohen got a little extra profit to cover taxes. Again, this makes no sense, as Cohen was already out of pocket by a whole year's work.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1075 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why the retainer argument makes no sense at all (Original Post)
Doodley
May 2018
OP
ck4829
(35,084 posts)1. Cohen: "What's going on? Why am I staring at the undercarriage of a bus? Where am I?"
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)2. Retainer on which you pay taxes is attorneys fees
Client cost retainers have to be paid into the attorney trust account. Cohen would at minimum have a trust account violation here.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)3. Of course it doesn't make any sense
That's why whoever wrote that NDA tweet for Trump (you know he didn't write it) affixed a hasty "Oh the rich are quite different from you proles" fig leaf. It's so that the rubes who still like Trump can smirk and say, "You wouldn't understand matters of high finance," and be done with yet another impeachable offense.
Stallion
(6,476 posts)4. Plus the IRS Will Be Interested in Whether it was INCOME for Personal Services or Reimbursement ...
for costs