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

[KeithD]

True enough, but from whom did/do they take their marching orders? And all of Trump's corporate veils are going to end up looking like see through negligees.

If they get caught, it must be Obamahillary, because Donald is too smart to be caught, doncha know?

 

[KeithD]

Weisselberg is "Executive 1" on page 17 of the criminal information filed by prosecutors in the Michael Cohen case.

I was so hoping it was Donald Jr.

 

[Adre]

The guy who filed Trump’s tax returns now has immunity.

 

[Pookie]

The guy who filed Trump’s tax returns now has immunity.

No honor among thieves.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, like I said, he's ignoring the fact that both Trump's lawyers said it was for his campaign.
Thanks for confirming I was correct.

You can prove anything is legal if you ignore enough facts. In this case you only need to ignore one, as confirmed by three people, that it actually was for the campaign.

Trump, also, has admitted the same, in a round about way, by saying he can spend as much of his own money as he wants.
If it wasn't for the campaign, that statement would be completely irrelevant to the charges against Cohen.

Show me the statements of Trumps attorneys saying he broke the law.

 

[RoryN]

Rightguide = 29 posts in this thread, and counting.

That's a fuck of a lot of deplorable butthurt right there.

 

[schism666]

vetteman = 29 posts in this thread, and counting.

That's a fuck of a lot of deplorable butthurt right there.

fypyw

 

[Adre]

Rightguide = 29 posts in this thread, and counting.

That's a fuck of a lot of deplorable butthurt right there.

You’d think a legal scholar like him would have more important things to do and people to see.

 

[Rightguide]

You’d think a legal scholar like him would have more important things to do and people to see.

I do and I am. You all will be rid of me soon...for a while anyway.

 

[von_Bismarck]

The guy who filed Trump’s tax returns now has immunity.

This is gonna get gooood.

 

[about_average]

Show me the statements of Trumps attorneys saying he broke the law.

If you can't find them saying it was to protect his campaign you haven't been paying attention and you're beyond anyone's help.

 

[Adre]

Will Trump say he prefers war heroes who survive brain cancer?

 

[KeithD]

Will Trump say he prefers war heroes who survive brain cancer?

Absolutely. And Melania will travel alone to the funeral and again sit next to Obama and beam at him.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I do and I am. You all will be rid of me soon...for a while anyway.

Heading back to the sandbox, Gunny?

 

[schism666]

Heading back to the sandbox, Gunny?

the cats bury him

 

[phrodeau]

I do and I am. You all will be rid of me soon...for a while anyway.

Have you been indicted too?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I guess I'm not getting what you're saying.
What I see is you saying he's not guilty then pointing to 18 USC 2(a) which states that he is just as punishable for Cohen's actions as Cohen, assuming 18 USC 2(a) uses the criminal law definition of "principle".

But even if 18 USC 2(a) is using some other definition of "principle", don't forget that Trump is claiming he paid back Cohen which would mean he knowingly violated FEC rules. Definitely for not reporting it, and possibly knowingly accepting an amount that violated FEC rules (I'm only assuming it's a violation to knowingly accept an illegal contribution, I haven't looked for the specific rule).

This January 2018 article from the Harvard Law Review Blog is as fair a treatment of the issue as I have found. Author Frampton lays out a solid legal argument for his position and then in the section at the bottom which I've italicized in red acknowledges why he might be wrong. And that's the complexity that aligns with the President's position.

One plausible counter-argument to the point I’ve been advancing—that the $130,000 payment to Daniels likely counts as an undisclosed, and (depending on its source) unlawfully large, “contribution” under FECA—is that that the payment could not have been a contribution because federal law would have prohibited the expenditure of official campaign funds for the same purpose. In addition to regulating campaign contributions, FECA regulates campaign expenditures, and it prohibits the expenditure of campaign funds “accepted by a candidate” for “personal use.” “Personal use” is defined in 52 U.S.C. § 30114(b)(2) as the use of campaign funds “to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” Certain categories of expenses are per se “personal use” expenditures—campaign funds can never be used for a candidate’s clothing; a country club membership; tuition payments—but the statutory list is merely illustrative.

First, let’s assume that, under this part of FECA, the use of campaign funds for a payment like the one to Daniels is prohibited. The argument that the payment would therefore not qualify as a “contribution” is still misplaced. Suppose Booster sends a $100 check to Candidate’s campaign, and in the memo line, he writes, “Use this donation for a night at the opera for Candidate! It’ll help him win this November!” Booster has plainly made a contribution to the campaign within the meaning of § 30101(8)(A) (defining “contribution”), but it would be an unlawful expenditure if Candidate actually used campaign funds for a night out at the opera: sporting events and theater tickets are another one of the per se “personal use” categories (11 C.F.R. 113.1(g)(1)(i)(F)). In other words, although contributions and expenditures are related concepts under FECA, they are not coextensive, and it would be a mistake to answer the question “Is this a contribution?” by asking “Does another part of the statute independently prohibit the expenditure of already-accepted campaign funds in a particular way?”

But there is a decent argument that federal law would allow the use of campaign funds for the type of payment to Daniels we’re discussing here, and I want to explore this point in some detail. Under § 30114(b)(1)-(2), a “contribution that has been accepted by a candidate” cannot be “converted to personal use,” which means that funds cannot be used “to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” Using campaign funds to quietly settle a pre-existing legal claim (say, for example, the Trump University class action lawsuit settlement) would clearly qualify as conversion: that legal liability exists whether or not Trump is a candidate. And the fact that a candidate or officeholder might subjectively care about a legal problem (say, a DWI arrest, a messy divorce, or a conviction for lewd conduct in an airport bathroom) solely because of the candidate’s campaign aspirations is immaterial. In a recent case involving disgraced former Senator Larry Craig, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals explained that when it comes to legal fees, expenditures are generally “personal” unless the substantive allegations “arise[] directly from campaign activity” (e.g., legal fees to defend a candidate accused of stealing yard signs from an opponent). The D.C. Circuit termed this the “allegations standard”: if the substantive allegations themselves “would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign,” then the legal fees responding to these allegations “would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign”; thus, campaign expenditures for such legal fees count as the (unlawful) “personal use” of campaign funds.

But the payment to Daniels was not a “legal fee”—it was an effort to deal with bad publicity on the cusp of an election. The D.C. Circuit acknowledged that the “allegations standard” is not the approach the FEC applies for campaign expenditures arising from a candidate’s desire to counter negative publicity. In such scenarios, when we’re asking whether campaign funds are being used “to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign,” we’re really asking something more like, “Absent the campaign, would the candidate have incurred the expense?” For example, in 2001, former Senator Bob Kerrey had left political life for academia when the New York Times and 60 Minutes reported his possible involvement in a massacre of civilians during the Vietnam War. He retained a PR firm and sought an Opinion Letter from the FEC on whether he could pay a $59,554.48 invoice using leftover campaign funds from his time in the U.S. Senate. His argument, in sum, was that the bad publicity “would never have arisen if it were not for the fact that he was a Federal candidate and Federal officeholder.” The FEC agreed, advising that such an expenditure would not constitute “conversion” because “the recent publicity would not have occurred if Mr. Kerrey had not been a prominent Senator and prominent Federal candidate.” In other words, but-for his high-profile candidacy and office-holding, the alleged misbehavior would never have come to light; thus, the publicity expenses did not exist “irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign” and campaign funds could be used.

Similarly, in connection with a 2010 U.S. Senate race, the FEC issued an Opinion Letter advising that campaign funds could be used to support a federal candidate’s litigation against a newspaper to keep his old public employment records sealed. In that case, Senate candidate Joe Miller unsuccessfully fought to block an Alaska newspaper’s efforts to obtain his (presumably embarrassing) old employment records from a state agency; Miller incurred an $85,000 judgment against him for his efforts. Even though the embarrassing records pre-dated the campaign, the FEC advised that campaign funds could be used in Miller’s efforts to prevent their disclosure. The use of campaign funds was appropriate there “because the lawsuit would not have existed irrespective of [the candidate’s] campaign.”

To recap where we are: The FEC’s approach for assessing whether “legal fees” can be paid with campaign funds is the “allegations standard” (such expenditures are impermissible “personal use” payments if the substantive legal allegations would have existed irrespective of the candidacy). But, in other contexts, the FEC adopts a more flexible approach to the use of campaign funds. When it comes to campaigns’ efforts to counter bad publicity (including efforts to prevent the disclosure of potentially embarrassing information), the FEC looks to the “inquirer’s motive” to determine whether campaign funds can be used: but-for the campaign, the FEC asks, would the candidate have received the heightened scrutiny (and incurred the resulting expenses) necessitating the public relations expenditures?

Following the Kerrey and Miller Opinions, a payment to Daniels might be justifiable as a campaign expense. It is hard to imagine Trump (or anyone) paying Daniels $130,000 if he were not running for office, so the expense is not one that would “have existed irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” If costs incurred to rebut allegations of war crimes and to prevent the disclosure of embarrassing employment records are valid non-personal campaign expenses, which can be paid for using campaign funds, Trump’s efforts to head-off the PR disaster that would have been Daniels’s press tour might count as a valid use of campaign resources, too.

Why do we care? Because, if the foregoing is misplaced—if a hypothetical payment to Daniels using Trump campaign funds would have qualified as a “personal use” of campaign funds, and hence been unlawful—one could argue that Trump was in an impossible bind: soliciting non-campaign funds (or using his own personal funds) to procure a non-disclosure agreement with Daniels would violate the law’s prohibition on campaign “contributions,” [on the other hand] using campaign funds to do so would violate the law’s prohibition on conversion of funds for personal use. One could argue that such an absurd result must inform our interpretation of the statute (and lead reasonable minds to the conclusion that the $130,000 was not a campaign “contribution”).

https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/the-coming-storm-hush-money-and-the-federal-election-campaign-act/

What Dershowitz, Giuliani and other Trump lawyers are legitimately screaming about -- and Cohen should have fought -- is, if Trump cannot even RAISE (much less even USE) "campaign funds" for the purpose of paying Daniels hush money (if that is a personal expenditure and not a legitimate campaign expense) how can the law be written in such a way that it nonetheless penalizes him for a misuse of "campaign funds?" Why should he have to DOCUMENT the use of personal funds to win a campaign when those funds don't QUALIFY for legitimate campaign expense purposes? Same question asked the other way 'round: Why should personal funds UNQUALIFIED FOR A LEGITIMATE CAMPAIGN EXPENSE NONETHELESS EVER BE CONSIDERED AS REGULATED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS?

Did you send your suit to the cleaners to look good on TV? Great!

Did you pay for that out of your own pocket? Outstanding!

Did you report that expenditure on FEC Form yadda yadda? NO??? Whoa. Big Trouble, Hondo.

But as Frampton illustrates, that appears to be how the law and the FEC regs work. It's the fundamental illogic of it all.

 

[Rightguide]

This January 2018 article from the Harvard Law Review Blog is as fair a treatment of the issue as I have found. Author Frampton lays out a solid legal argument for his position and then in the section at the bottom which I've italicized in red acknowledges why he might be wrong. And that's the complexity that aligns with the President's position.



What Dershowitz, Giuliani and other Trump lawyers are legitimately screaming about -- and Cohen should have fought -- is, if Trump cannot even RAISE (much less even USE) "campaign funds" for the purpose of paying Daniels hush money (if that is a personal expenditure and not a legitimate campaign expense) how can the law be written in such a way that it nonetheless penalizes him for a misuse of "campaign funds?" Why should he have to DOCUMENT the use of personal funds to win a campaign when those funds don't QUALIFY for legitimate campaign expense purposes? Same question asked the other way 'round: Why should personal funds UNQUALIFIED FOR A LEGITIMATE CAMPAIGN EXPENSE NONETHELESS EVER BE CONSIDERED AS REGULATED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS?

Did you send your suit to the cleaners to look good on TV? Great!

Did you pay for that out of your own pocket? Outstanding!

Did you report that expenditure on FEC Form yadda yadda? NO??? Whoa. Big Trouble, Hondo.

But as Frampton illustrates, that appears to be how the law and the FEC regs work. It's the fundamental illogic of it all.

We can't lose sight of the fact that these laws were written by people who were quite adapt at creating enough ambiguity in laws to escape prosecution for violations of campaign financing regulations.

 

[IG_88]

The atmosphere around the various news sites is anticipation. Trumps gonna blow and do or say something stupid even for him.

 

[toeskr]

It's disappointing, but it's good news to the Mueller team trying to understand what happened.

Does Mueller portray your "daddy" in your dreams?

Don't be disappointed, bring your friends. Lol.

They'll figure out what happened.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why should personal funds UNQUALIFIED FOR A LEGITIMATE CAMPAIGN EXPENSE NONETHELESS EVER BE CONSIDERED AS REGULATED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS?

Did you send your suit to the cleaners to look good on TV? Great!

Did you pay for that out of your own pocket? Outstanding!

Did you report that expenditure on FEC Form yadda yadda? NO??? Whoa. Big Trouble, Hondo.

But as Frampton illustrates, that appears to be how the law and the FEC regs work. It's the fundamental illogic of it all.

So, in summary, a $10.95 dry cleaning bill carries the exact same legal and moral weight as a $130,000 hush money payment to a porn actress.

This concludes our lecture on reductio ad absurdum logical fallacies.

Join us next week when Professor Hogan will discuss yet another favorite logical fallacy, "appeal to authority". Your homework assignment is to research the concept of "Gish Gallop". This will be on the test.

Class dismissed.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So, in summary, a $10.95 dry cleaning bill carries the exact same legal and moral weight as a $130,000 hush money payment to a porn actress.

This concludes our lecture on reductio ad absurdum logical fallacies.

Join us next week when Professor Hogan will discuss yet another favorite logical fallacy, "appeal to authority". Your homework assignment is to research the concept of "Gish Gallop". This will be on the test.

Class dismissed.

No dumb ass. It does not carry the EXACT SAME moral weight of a $130,000 hush money payment to a porn actress. But it does illustrate MORE than a potential problematic conflict in how the law is written. And when the legal process grapples with investigation and prosecuting violations of the law, the specifics of how the law is WRITTEN necessarily come into play.

And if you can't (or more likely simply WON'T) make that distinction simply because of the scale of my comparison it's either because you don't know what Reductio ad absurdum actually means or don't care.

 

[about_average]

This January 2018 article from the Harvard Law Review Blog is as fair a treatment of the issue as I have found. Author Frampton lays out a solid legal argument for his position and then in the section at the bottom which I've italicized in red acknowledges why he might be wrong. And that's the complexity that aligns with the President's position.

Some interesting arguments to be sure.

Obviously I haven't read through all of the FEC related campaign rules, but it seems like the law allows hush money payments for the purpose of protecting a campaign.
I just can't think of any other examples of people being charged with, judges allowing and lawyers pleading guilty to charges for violating a law that doesn't exist (meaning a non-existent violation).

Did you send your suit to the cleaners to look good on TV? Great!

Did you pay for that out of your own pocket? Outstanding!

Did you report that expenditure on FEC Form yadda yadda? NO??? Whoa. Big Trouble, Hondo.

If a candidate gets their suit cleaned every two weeks prior to running for office, then switches to every 2 days while running, IMO the suit cleanings should be legitimate expenses, less one every two weeks, because they wouldn't be incurred except for the campaign.

As for the FEC violation, in the plethora of things being expensed I can see $10 expenditures being overlooked and subject to a token fine. It's hard to overlook a two six figure expenditures, particularly when you're personally involved in arranging them.
There's a huge difference in level of involvement between talking with your attorney to plan hush money payments to protect your campaign and telling a staffer "I want my suit cleaned every 3 days"

Then there's the fact that when questioned about it, Trump didn't think, "Shit, I need to get ahead of this and file an updated FEC report and accept a fine for failing to report it! Otherwise I'll be criminally liable" and then say to reporters, "No comment."
Instead he went to his go to response and lied, "I didn't know anything about it."


I suppose Trump might succeed in getting his double standard (that he rails against), but I'm guessing he's fucked himself on it. He's certainly given new meaning to the term "Teflon President" when it comes to his base.
On the other hand, a recent Fox poll (released on 8-22) shows more American's approve of the Mueller investigation than approve of Trump, 59% vs 41%.

 

[SpeareChucker]

For Trump, the corruption dam has burst wide open! He's toast now!



http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24...lary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million/

 

[about_average]

http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24...lary-campaign-illegally-laundered-84-million/

If the allegations prove to pan out, the responsible people should be prosecuted.
Or persecuted, to use the Right's term.