LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

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

Did Trump just inadvertently admit to violating federal law?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...vertently-admit-violating-federal-law-n903246

WASHINGTON — In an interview with Fox News Thursday morning, President Donald Trump said the payments that his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, admitted making to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal were not illegal.

"They weren't campaign finance," he said. "They came from me," adding, "They didn't come out of the campaign."

Does it matter that Trump paid the two women out of his own pocket, rather than using campaign funds? Yes, but it raises the possibility that he committed a campaign finance law violation — failure to report a campaign expense — that's different than the one to which Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court on Tuesday.

...

In the case of McDougal, Cohen pleaded guilty to encouraging American Media, publisher of the supermarket tabloid National Enquirer, to pay McDougal $150,000 to keep quiet. That violated two campaign-finance laws: one that makes it illegal for a corporation to give money directly to a campaign, and another that limits how much any individual can contribute.

The Daniels case is different. If Trump had paid the money to her directly, that would not necessarily be illegal, if it had been accounted for correctly. A candidate can contribute any amount of money to his own campaign. But all such contributions have to be publicly reported as campaign expenditures, and the Daniels payment, which Trump clearly did not want disclosed, was not reported.

...

There are legal defenses available to both Trump and American Media. Trump could say the payment to Daniels was not to influence the campaign but was to save his marriage. American Media could say that as a news organization, it can make any arrangements it wants to publish or kill a story.

But after Cohen's confession, those defenses will be harder to make. Cohen said in court that he has evidence that the payments were made specifically to prevent damaging information from influencing the election.
 
Pookie said:
Did Trump just inadvertently admit to violating federal law?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...vertently-admit-violating-federal-law-n903246

WASHINGTON — In an interview with Fox News Thursday morning, President Donald Trump said the payments that his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, admitted making to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal were not illegal.

"They weren't campaign finance," he said. "They came from me," adding, "They didn't come out of the campaign."

Does it matter that Trump paid the two women out of his own pocket, rather than using campaign funds? Yes, but it raises the possibility that he committed a campaign finance law violation — failure to report a campaign expense — that's different than the one to which Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court on Tuesday.

...

In the case of McDougal, Cohen pleaded guilty to encouraging American Media, publisher of the supermarket tabloid National Enquirer, to pay McDougal $150,000 to keep quiet. That violated two campaign-finance laws: one that makes it illegal for a corporation to give money directly to a campaign, and another that limits how much any individual can contribute.

The Daniels case is different. If Trump had paid the money to her directly, that would not necessarily be illegal, if it had been accounted for correctly. A candidate can contribute any amount of money to his own campaign. But all such contributions have to be publicly reported as campaign expenditures, and the Daniels payment, which Trump clearly did not want disclosed, was not reported.

...

There are legal defenses available to both Trump and American Media. Trump could say the payment to Daniels was not to influence the campaign but was to save his marriage. American Media could say that as a news organization, it can make any arrangements it wants to publish or kill a story.

But after Cohen's confession, those defenses will be harder to make. Cohen said in court that he has evidence that the payments were made specifically to prevent damaging information from influencing the election.
Click to expand...

*chuckles*
 
Pookie said:
Did Trump just inadvertently admit to violating federal law?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...vertently-admit-violating-federal-law-n903246

WASHINGTON — In an interview with Fox News Thursday morning, President Donald Trump said the payments that his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, admitted making to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal were not illegal.

"They weren't campaign finance," he said. "They came from me," adding, "They didn't come out of the campaign."

Does it matter that Trump paid the two women out of his own pocket, rather than using campaign funds? Yes, but it raises the possibility that he committed a campaign finance law violation — failure to report a campaign expense — that's different than the one to which Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court on Tuesday.

...

In the case of McDougal, Cohen pleaded guilty to encouraging American Media, publisher of the supermarket tabloid National Enquirer, to pay McDougal $150,000 to keep quiet. That violated two campaign-finance laws: one that makes it illegal for a corporation to give money directly to a campaign, and another that limits how much any individual can contribute.

The Daniels case is different. If Trump had paid the money to her directly, that would not necessarily be illegal, if it had been accounted for correctly. A candidate can contribute any amount of money to his own campaign. But all such contributions have to be publicly reported as campaign expenditures, and the Daniels payment, which Trump clearly did not want disclosed, was not reported.

...

There are legal defenses available to both Trump and American Media. Trump could say the payment to Daniels was not to influence the campaign but was to save his marriage. American Media could say that as a news organization, it can make any arrangements it wants to publish or kill a story.

But after Cohen's confession, those defenses will be harder to make. Cohen said in court that he has evidence that the payments were made specifically to prevent damaging information from influencing the election.
Click to expand...

Pecker has been granted immunity.
 
Aglaopheme said:
Pecker has been granted immunity.
Click to expand...

For the umpteenth time. It isn't a campaign expense if it isn't "solely" related to the campaign, there are two others reasons for the payment. It's not a campaign expense if he authorized his attorney to execute an NDA and pay hush money to a third party if he reimbursed the attorney out of his own pocket. The decision to do so had others reasons that were not solely related to the campaign, such as protecting his family and commercial brand.


Dershowitz: Trump Did Not Commit a Crime If He Paid Women Out of His Own Pocket
Challenges Lanny Davis to on-air debate.



http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/08/...e-if-money-paid-women-came-out-his-own-pocket
 
What will be really interesting will be when Fox turns on Trump (it's been taking jabs recently). That might be "throw in the towel" time for him.
 
Rightguide said:
For the umpteenth time. It isn't a campaign expense if it isn't "solely" related to the campaign, there are two others reasons for the payment. It's not a campaign expense if he authorized his attorney to execute an NDA and pay hush money to a third party if he reimbursed the attorney out of his own pocket. The decision to do so had others reasons that were not solely related to the campaign, such as protecting his family and commercial brand.


Dershowitz: Trump Did Not Commit a Crime If He Paid Women Out of His Own Pocket
Challenges Lanny Davis to on-air debate.



http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/08/...e-if-money-paid-women-came-out-his-own-pocket
Click to expand...

Except he didn’t pay them out of his own pocket, dingdong. AMI made one payment and Cohen was reimbursed by the Trump Organization.
 
Last edited:
Aglaopheme said:
Except he didn’t pay them out of his own pocket, dingdong. AMI made one payment and Cory Neas reimbursed by the Trump Organization.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the fact both of Trump's attorneys said it was to prevent his campaign from being wrecked.
 
RobDownSouth said:
Will be interesting to see if the National Enquirer turns on Trump since Publisher Pecker has immunity now.
Click to expand...

KeithD said:
What will be really interesting will be when Fox turns on Trump (it's been taking jabs recently). That might be "throw in the towel" time for him.
Click to expand...

about_average said:
Not to mention the fact both of Trump's attorneys said it was to prevent his campaign from being wrecked.
Click to expand...

The neddle is rapidly moving. Releasing that audio of the gang conspiring to make the payment was a little stroke of genius.

Hey, Session’s balls dropped today. That’s something.
 
Aglaopheme said:
The neddle is rapidly moving. Releasing that audio of the gang conspiring to make the payment was a little stroke of genius.

Hey, Session’s balls dropped today. That’s something.
Click to expand...

Too many magic mushrooms, sister.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Trump Grifts $2billion in Crypto from Abu Dhabi
Replies
3
Views
81
jomar
jomar
1
The people who spent 8 years trying to imprison Trump as their main political strategy -- first as part of Russiagate, then with 4 bullshit prosecuti
Replies
5
Views
64
DeluxAuto
DeluxAuto
butters
Canadian PM cuts trump off as he does his ugly waffling routine at the G7 summit
2 3
Replies
55
Views
988
ChloeTzang
ChloeTzang
P
Trump Insider Reveals ‘Nobody’ Is Talking to Hegseth as Iran Crisis Spirals
2
Replies
34
Views
666
nowisthetime
nowisthetime
Rightguide
Meta Pays Trump 25 Million
Replies
24
Views
425
Rebel5soul
R
Back
Top