Trump calls Michael Cohen payouts a ‘simple private transaction,’ denies they were campaign contribu

Since the money was pulled out of Cohen's "organization"(which actually wasn't really an organization per say. But rather a place to put shell money. You know, the kind of untaxable money that Liberals talk about. I'm amazed they haven't touched on that part.). If Cohen were fighting the case and I were his lawyer I'd argue that the organization was a kind of 'shore account' and wasn't an organization in the business sense(not like he employed anybody) so it technically would slide past that definition.

 

I’m sure he talked to and about his client. Attorneys often do

 

oh I think the money laundering was a crime too, I wait to see if Mueller finds Trump did any money laundering and if so how much and if any of it occurred with Russia

 

I don't believe the LLC he set up used an off shore bank account. The LLC was just used to conceal the payor. You know, to hide the nature of the payment. Of course it was large and unusual enough to get flagged by the banks.

 

Oh, so 'off shore' literally means in non-US territories. I thought it was a general term for any monies not accounted for by the IRS.

 

No. That is not what it means. There were no tax related charges concerning the hush money payments.

 

We will see this, it's just a matter of time:

 

Cohen was paid by the Trump organization. Hence the immunity deal with Trump's CFO.
Cohen created an LLC to launder the money.
It's not rocket surgery to see if Trump facilitated the payments he is as guilty as Cohen. I would expect some leaks of a sealed indictment for Thumper within a few months.

 

1. Cohen billed the Trump administration for 35K per month for legal fees
2. Cohen testified he was paid by the Trump administration for legal services at 35K per month
3. Cohen has no recorded conversation, tape, or email directing him to do anything but pay the settlement
4. Cohen stated in his sentencing agreement that he took it upon himself to pay it out of his own pocket and file the LLC because he wanted to be the fixer of the next president as he would make a lot of money in retainers fees if he had an inside line
5. Cohen actually did charge 4 million in retainers and hid the money and is why he was charged with tax fraud

This is whats in the Mueller agreement as well. I didn't just come up with it myself. Cohen was charged with Campaign finance violations for exceeding the allowable amount by paying Daniels 130K. Trump on the other hand can pay any amount he wants and anything that would have been paid with or without a campaign wouldn't be considered a campaign violation.

The only way you are going to get charges on Trump is if they have a recording or email with Trump telling Cohen to fake the LLC or pay her out of Cohens own pocket. Without that their is nothing to charge and at best it would be conspiracy to commit a felony.

 

Yeah, and you would be undermining your client with an argument like that. Asserting that this was an account that was set up for the purpose of avoiding scrutiny or a clear chain of evidence won't reflect well on your client.

I would suggest another profession if I were you!

 

Perhaps that is true. We shall see.

But you seem to forget that we have already heard Trump on tape discussing just that with Michael Cohen, and now we've got Pecker saying the same thing and acknowledging it in writing.

Trump's "defending the family" argument holds no water. The incident with Daniels happened a decade ago, but he only thought to protect his family the week after the "access Hollywood" tape came out. And since the incident in question occurred while Melania was pregnant with Barron, I'm not sure which part of Trump was "defending the family".

And the Edwards analogy does not apply, because there was some ambiguity in the Edwards case, because there was no election imminent and he did not order third parties to do his bidding. Furthermore, his associates could not testify that their understanding was that the payment was to specifically try and affect the outcome of an election.

Hiding the bimbo stories would have affected an election won by 70,000 votes out of 160 million. That's not too hard a case to make. And there is little doubt that that was Trump's intention.

I am sure Trump won't be convicted, even if he is impeached.

Whether he will be indicted or not, is another matter.

The SDNY may choose to challenge the Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting President, or Robert Mueller may do so, if a case(s) emerges from his investigation.

Either way, this policy has never been tested in court, and there is no case law. Policies are not laws, and when laws change or courts rule, policies have to change to reflect the rulings. That's the way it works.

If you want to hang your hat on this policy, remember that the Justice Department had a policy that no sitting President could be deposed in a civil matter while serving either. But Ken Starr took that one to the Supreme Court. Clinton testified. I can see something similar happening here.

Indeed, that is precisely why Trump nominated Kavanaugh instead of one of the other Federalist Society list. He publicly argued for giving Trump a "get out of jail free" card.

I doubt that he will be impeached, unless his conduct is so blatant, and so well documented that there is no other choice. And even then, I doubt that there will be the political will.

I have said all along that the Democrats will not make the same mistake that Gingrich, Delay and Hastert made in 1998.

 

Trump had consensual sex with Daniels where no laws are broken 10 years ago. In June of 2016 Daniels threatened Trump and started a bidding war with the National Enquirer. There wasn't anything to discuss with Daniels until she came forward to out Trump. Trump won the bid with a 130K agreement to pay her and an NDA. All he has to say is I would have settled this no matter if I was running or not because it would have affected my family and business. How are you going to prove otherwise as the law allows him that exact right?

 

No, infidelity is not against the law, even when you wife is pregnant.

Ten years later, Trump decided to "protect his family". It just so happened, that it was on the eve of a Presidential election he was trying to influence, as all his co conspirators have said they clearly understood.

Whether he will be charged with a crime or impeached over this remains to be seen.

But what happened is very obvious, and Trump's usual dishonest deflection and lies don't carry any weight outside of Trumpster world.

He isn't going to get away with this BS anymore. Of course, you Trumpsters will eat it all up. But the rest of the world saw his Teflon wear off in November.

 

It is an arguable point. If they can get audio of him saying in confidence it was to save the campaign, then he's in trouble. If not, he's done this many times outside of campaigns, he has an obvious and compelling reason to hush his affairs with NDAs, and it isn't a campaign finance violation.

If guilty then presumably he'd be fined around the $350,000 Obama was when his campaign accepted $1.9 million from his Democrat buddies in violation of law. Loljks, 5, 10, 25, life in prison. Death maybe.

 

Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis has a different opinion.

Of course, the "veteran campaign lawyer" that the right wing blog is referencing is Hans von Spasofsky, one of the guys who has spent the last several years promoting the GOP voter fraud myth, and who sat on Trump's moribund commission.

 

Like you, most dems make continuing assumptions and claim them to be fact. For example, I have only provided you with what the law states and you have determined I am a Trumpster just because you don't like me posting the actual laws governing the situation. You don't get to determine whats going to happen based on what you like or dislike.

I will explain it one more time. Trump didn't go looking for Daniels for a pay off. Daniels threatened Trump to pay up or she was going to expose their affair from 10 years ago.

As the law reads, their NDA can not be used as evidence and it can't be exposed and the Privacy Act and the Campaign Finance statutes allow any candidate to make any settlement without it being a campaign finance violation as long as the same settlement would have happened before or after the campaign.

If you have evidence to prove otherwise then I suggest you provide it to Federal Law enforcement.

 

Oops,
Looks like Trump and Cohen both met with the Pecker to cover up his affairs to shield them from the election.
You, my friend, need a new excuse for a crime.

 

Oops. Looks like Dems are caught (again) making up more BS as the sentencing agreement states the 3rd person in the room is unknown so Liberals and their bubblehead media now assumed it is Trump. Even if it is it doesn't matter. If you had a document that stated it was Trump you would have posted it.

 

Gee, I would have thought you would know about it already. FOX isn't covering it?

 

Even is there is a felony involved so was Clinton's perjury, and not even a GOP Senate voted to impeach him. Perjury is punishable by five years in jail.

 

Fox doesn't make up news for the media little brains that believe anything they hear so they can get worked into a froth over something that doesn't exist. If you can't read the documents for yourself then you have a right to believe anything you want. My statement still stands.

If this wasn't attempt number 436 of the (Oh we got him now) charade or claims made by a convicted felon for lying to the FBI now looking for a plea deal anywhere he might find it, you might generate some interest. Other than that the only media covering these types of stories are the alt left low viewer news outlets that will run any negitive story no matter what the source. Sorry, seen this movie 436 times now.

 

And it still hasn't sunk in for you that they turn out to be true.
Maybe you will get it at 500.

 

Bottom line.

If Obama had paid off two mistresses while his wife was raising a newborn, conservatives would have crapped their pants and demanded impeachment, and they would have had enough support from Democrats to have done it.

That’s a simple truth.

 

Federal law enforcement is on the job.

As I said, I have no idea whether Trump will be charged over this.

But what happened is obvious, as even you note.

Trump plotted to pay this woman off and laundered the money through a standard arrangement that his lackeys.

That he paid her off in order to keep her story out of the papers, and not to protect his family is a blinding glimpse of the obvious.

His lies about it are pathetic, but then his lies often are. Responsibility is not a Trump trait.

The fact that few people outside the Trumpster universe are buying this BS anymore is also obvious.

And the fact that she auctioned her story off is relevant.

And it clearly wasn't a bidding war, as the two bidders were working together, and keeping each other informed throughout.

None the less, the settlement was reached AFTER the Access Hollywood tape hit the airwaves. The Russians did what they could to aid Trump by releasing part of their Podesta email trove the same day. But Trump knew he needed to pay off to keep that story off the TV camera. And he did it , in his usual shap dash and sloppy way.

Oh, and now that we have him in the room specifically discussing paying them off to influence the election........

 

What baffles me is how can payments from Trump, his campaign, or his assistant to some third party be campaign "contributions"? Contributions are monies coming into the campaign, not the other way around. Yet violating the contribution sections of the law is what the SSDNY got Cohen to plead guilty to.