"Co-conspirator" Trump in deep trouble as Cohen pleads guilty

[Colonel Hogan]

which funds for a campaign are not considered campaign funds?

Basically personal funds (haircuts, new clothes, plastic surgery nose jobs, etc) which might make a candidate more electable are NOT campaign funds. The law was specifically put in to prevent candidates from "living off" campaign proceeds. There is a difference in law between legitimate campaign expenditures and those that simply aren't. Part of that definition is that legitimate campaign expenditures are ONLY those that WOULD NOT exist but for the very existence of the political campaign: advertising, printing, travel, etc. There was a very good article written recently by a former FEC commissioner about how hush money to Stormy Daniels and company did not qualify by that definition because there are any number of reasons OTHER THAN THE CAMPAIGN to keep her quiet. Thus, it was not a campaign "contribution" at all.

Trouble is, like any legal theory, you have to fight FOR it to PROVE it. Cohen, by pleading guilty to an alleged campaign finance violation, essentially legitimizes the charge. He creates the violation that he arguably wasn't guilty of -- count eight in the indictment. The rest of the counts he may well have been guilty of.

And the real problem for Trump is that Cohen plead guilty to 18 USC Sec. 2(b). And while Cohen wasn't charged with violating 18 USC 2(a), THAT section might well signal legal problems for Trump under the language of whosoever "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" an offense against the United States.

Now that Cohen's plea established an "offense," Trump is open to the liability imposed by section (a).

Take a look: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2

 

[070276]

So, what's the difference between Trump paying Cohen to pay off chicks to influence the election and the DNC/Clinton campaign paying Fusion to pay off a foreign agent to influence the election?

 

[schism666]

Basically personal funds (haircuts, new clothes, plastic surgery nose jobs, etc) which might make a candidate more electable are NOT campaign funds. The law was specifically put in to prevent candidates from "living off" campaign proceeds. There is a difference in law between legitimate campaign expenditures and those that simply aren't. Part of that definition is that legitimate campaign expenditures are ONLY those that WOULD NOT exist but for the very existence of the political campaign: advertising, printing, travel, etc. There was a very good article written recently by a former FEC commissioner about how hush money to Stormy Daniels and company did not qualify by that definition because there are any number of reasons OTHER THAN THE CAMPAIGN to keep her quiet. Thus, it was not a campaign "contribution" at all.

Trouble is, like any legal theory, you have to fight FOR it to PROVE it. Cohen, by pleading guilty to an alleged campaign finance violation, essentially legitimizes the charge. He creates the violation that he arguably wasn't guilty of -- count eight in the indictment. The rest of the counts he may well have been guilty of.

And the real problem for Trump is that Cohen plead guilty to 18 USC Sec. 2(b). And while Cohen wasn't charged with violating 18 USC 2(a), THAT section might well signal legal problems for Trump under the language of whosoever "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" an offense against the United States.

Now that Cohen's plea established an "offense," Trump is open to the liability imposed by section (a).

Take a look: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2

thank you for taking the time and providing the link.

 

[schism666]

So, what's the difference between Trump paying Cohen to pay off chicks to influence the election and the DNC/Clinton campaign paying Fusion to pay off a foreign agent to influence the election?

quiet pipsqueak.

 

[RoryN]

Lanny Davis says they have the wire transfer proof, and that his client Cohen is going to sing to Mueller about Trump trying to corrupt our democracy.

 

[070276]

For perspective:

Cohen's 5 tax fraud charges = max jail time of 5 years per count = 25 years.

Cohen's 1 making false statements to a financial institution charge = max jail time of 30 years.

Maximum of 55 years for those 6 charges - a literal lifetime sentence.

Cohen's 1 unlawful corporate contributions charge = max jail time of 5 years.

Cohen's 1 excessive campaign contributions charge = max jail time of 5 years.

That's a total of 65 years in prison facing the 51-year old Cohen.

Instead, by pleading guilty to every possible charge against him, he's reportedly looking at just 3.75 years to 5.25 years.

Who in the heck wouldn't make that sweet deal?

For reference, recall:

President Obama’s campaign has agreed to pay a $375,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission, among the largest penalties in the agency’s history.

The fine was imposed after an audit of the campaign’s books showed that it failed to report the identities of donors who gave large checks in the weeks before the 2008 election, according to a copy of the agreement between the FEC and the president’s campaign.

The document shows that the Obama campaign failed to disclose the identities of donors responsible for $2 million in contributions in the weeks ahead of the election. The campaign also misreported the dates of $85 million in other contributions.

In addition, the Obama campaign also kept $1.3 million in contributions that were above the legal maximum allowed for a federal campaign, failing to return them within the 60 days required by law. The campaign kept almost $874,000 of those donations until the FEC discovered they were unlawful.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d8773594efc_story.html?utm_term=.a85a695951f8

 

[Stain_mAnn]

Obama isnt president, lil one. Theres new fish to fry.

 

[bbx25]

Smart Trump spent 130K to influence an election and WON

DumbCuntClinton spent $1 billion to influence an election and LOST

 

[Saint Peter]

Who in the heck wouldn't make that sweet deal?

An innocent man.

 

[about_average]

Don't get too excited just yet.

It makes me think of the perjury adjudication against Bill Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky case which helped drive his ultimately meaningless impeachment. In the end, the illegal activity was forgiven because it was about sex. Just like most people didn't care that Bill lied under oath about sex, most people aren't going to care that Trump violated some technicality in campaign finance laws about sex.

You're probably right, though there's one major difference.
Clinton didn't lie about sex with Lewinsky in order to influence an election.
Trump conspired with Cohen to make an illegal payment in order to influence the election.

You're missing my point. I'm excusing neither Bill's perjury nor Trump's (for now, alleged) violation of campaign finance laws. I'm simply observing that people tend not to take these things seriously when they're about sexual escapades.

I guess technically "alleged", though Cohen is guilty and anyone who cares to has heard the tape of him conspiring on the phone with Trump to make the payments.

Trouble is, like any legal theory, you have to fight FOR it to PROVE it. Cohen, by pleading guilty to an alleged campaign finance violation, essentially legitimizes the charge. He creates the violation that he arguably wasn't guilty of -- count eight in the indictment. The rest of the counts he may well have been guilty of.

One of Trump's lawyers, probably Giuliani, also said it was done to help the campaign. So you have at least two who've confirmed what it was really for.

So, what's the difference between Trump paying Cohen to pay off chicks to influence the election and the DNC/Clinton campaign paying Fusion to pay off a foreign agent to influence the election?

Opposition research is legal.
I know you're trying to make it sound like Steele was working for a foreign government in his role as the person who created the dossier, but he wasn't.
So far there's no evidence made public it was illegal.

 

[jaF0]

You're probably right, though there's one major difference.

The w(R)ongs were out to hang Slick Willy by any means necessary and still couldn't.

Mitch The Bitch and Company will strive to protect the Demon Don at all costs.

 

[bbx25]

The w(R)ongs were out to hang Slick Willy by any means necessary and still couldn't.

Mitch The Bitch and Company will strive to protect the Demon Don at all costs.

Good!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Adre]

Trump told us the swamp would be drained. He just didn’t tell us who would drain it!

 

[Rightguide]

Basically personal funds (haircuts, new clothes, plastic surgery nose jobs, etc) which might make a candidate more electable are NOT campaign funds. The law was specifically put in to prevent candidates from "living off" campaign proceeds. There is a difference in law between legitimate campaign expenditures and those that simply aren't. Part of that definition is that legitimate campaign expenditures are ONLY those that WOULD NOT exist but for the very existence of the political campaign: advertising, printing, travel, etc. There was a very good article written recently by a former FEC commissioner about how hush money to Stormy Daniels and company did not qualify by that definition because there are any number of reasons OTHER THAN THE CAMPAIGN to keep her quiet. Thus, it was not a campaign "contribution" at all.

Trouble is, like any legal theory, you have to fight FOR it to PROVE it. Cohen, by pleading guilty to an alleged campaign finance violation, essentially legitimizes the charge. He creates the violation that he arguably wasn't guilty of -- count eight in the indictment. The rest of the counts he may well have been guilty of.

And the real problem for Trump is that Cohen plead guilty to 18 USC Sec. 2(b). And while Cohen wasn't charged with violating 18 USC 2(a), THAT section might well signal legal problems for Trump under the language of whosoever "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" an offense against the United States.

Now that Cohen's plea established an "offense," Trump is open to the liability imposed by section (a).

Take a look: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2

Mark Levin blows Lanny Davis and the Cohen plea out of the water:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5825126132001/?#sp=show-clips

 

[schism666]

Mark Levin blows Lanny Davis and the Cohen plea out of the water:

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5825126132001/?#sp=show-clips

he took of his glasses to read a prepared statement knowing he had to take the glasses off to read.

he then says, "the clinton family mob" or something you guys are fucked

 

[Rightguide]

he took of his glasses to read a prepared statement knowing he had to take the glasses off to read.

he then says, "the clinton family mob" or something you guys are fucked

Levin is a top attorney, constitutional scholar, founder of Landmark Legal Foundation, and former Chief of Staff to The Attorney General of the United States. He knows what he's talking about:

“I wanna help the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors, and of course the professors, I wanna help them understand what the law is,” Levin said. “The general counsel for the Clinton mob family, Lanny Davis, he had his client plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist.”

“Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He’s not the judge; he’s not the jury,” Levin said. “We didn’t adjudicate anything. It never went to court.”

Levin explained that a campaign expenditure under U.S. campaign finance law is an expenditure “solely for campaign activity.” He argued that any supposed reimbursement Trump paid to Cohen with his own money after Cohen paid off Stormy Daniels or any other woman who slept with the president is “perfectly legal.”

“A candidate who spends his own money, or even corporate money, for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign — it is not a campaign expenditure,”
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-on-cohen-guilty-plea-donald-trumps-in-the-clear/

 

[Adre]

The most fun now is watching the rightwing jackoff club members scrape the bottom of the excuse barrel in an attempt to insulate their dear President from the known criminals he has surrounded himself with. As if it’s just coincidence that his associates and perhaps even family members brazenly operate above the law, lying to banks and not bothering with details like paying taxes as they go about their lowlife (a favorite term of Trump’s) activities.


(RWCJ whataboutism in 5,4,3...)

 

[Rightguide]

The most fun now is watching the rightwing jackoff club members scrape the bottom of the excuse barrel in an attempt to insulate their dear President from the known criminals he has surrounded himself with. As if it’s just coincidence that his associates and perhaps even family members brazenly operate above the law, lying to banks and not bothering with details like paying taxes as they go about their lowlife (a favorite term of Trump’s) activities.


(RWCJ whataboutism in 5,4,3...)

The only real crime these two are guilty of is knowing and having been associated with Donald Trump.

 

[Aglaopheme]

The only real crime these two are guilty of is knowing and having been associated with Donald Trump.

https://media.giphy.com/media/YNPOG1czd0gs8/giphy.gif

 

[Adre]

The only real crime these two are guilty of is knowing and having been associated with Donald Trump.

Sure, tell ‘em that when they’re squeezing their sphincters extra tight in the showers.

We understand you don’t pay taxes, but they have to because they earn money.

 

[Rightguide]

https://media.giphy.com/media/YNPOG1czd0gs8/giphy.gif

It's unwise to put images of your children on the Internet.

 

[Aglaopheme]

Crimes are not crimes, and the truth is not the truth.

 

[schism666]

Crimes are not crimes, and the truth is not the truth.

vetteman ain't no man

 

[schism666]

Levin is a top attorney, constitutional scholar, founder of Landmark Legal Foundation, and former Chief of Staff to The Attorney General of the United States. He knows what he's talking about:

“I wanna help the law professors, the constitutional experts, the criminal defense lawyers, the former prosecutors, and of course the professors, I wanna help them understand what the law is,” Levin said. “The general counsel for the Clinton mob family, Lanny Davis, he had his client plead to two counts of criminality that don’t exist.”

“Just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so. He’s not the judge; he’s not the jury,” Levin said. “We didn’t adjudicate anything. It never went to court.”

Levin explained that a campaign expenditure under U.S. campaign finance law is an expenditure “solely for campaign activity.” He argued that any supposed reimbursement Trump paid to Cohen with his own money after Cohen paid off Stormy Daniels or any other woman who slept with the president is “perfectly legal.”

“A candidate who spends his own money, or even corporate money, for an event that occurred not as a result of the campaign — it is not a campaign expenditure,”
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-on-cohen-guilty-plea-donald-trumps-in-the-clear/

tell that to Cohen's cellmate :

 

[Rightguide]

Sure, tell ‘em that when they’re squeezing their sphincters extra tight in the showers.

The only reason they were pursued is because Mueller wanted to get to Trump by persecuting everyone associated with him, but to date has failed.