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

Both payments were made clearly to benefit the campaign, based on timing and testimony. The fact that neither set of monies made it into official campaign accounts is not relevant. I think you are putting too narrow a definition on the word contribution.

 

Because Cohen is a 3rd party. When he decided to spend his own money to stop a story about a candidate it is a campaign contribution. It was made worse when Cohen opened up an LLC in his own name to hide the transaction. Thats what they got him on.

 

"contribution" has an evident clear meaning in FEC regs and election laws. It is monies given by someone to the candidate or his campaign. It ain't that difficult. In case you're wondering,monies going from the campaign to someone else are called "expenses."

 

OK... let's go to the source... the () are mine

SNIP
A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election. (Check)

A loan, including a loan to the campaign from a member of the candidate’s family, is considered a contribution to the extent of the outstanding balance of the loan. (I don't consider either of these a loan but Check)

An expenditure made by any person in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate’s campaign is also considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate. (Check)
ENDSNIP

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/types-contributions

 

For Cohen: Any contribution by a 3rd party to influence a campaign is a campaign contribution. Paying off Daniels to stop her story about Trump with Cohens own money falls into that category. He spent over the legal limit of $3500.00 hence the violation.

For Trump: Candidates have no limit on contributions to their own campaign. Additionally, via the Privacy Act and Campaign laws, If Trump settles with a 3rd party that has negative information about him, he has the legal right without it being considered a violation of Campaign Finance if it could be reasonably considered he would have settled with or without the campaign.

Cohen got his tit in a ringer because (as stated by Mueller) Cohen wanted to be the Presidents fixer because he thought it would bring him millions in retainers from clients looking to have an inside connection to the president. He even received 4 million in retainers through this process, hid the money, and Mueller charged him with tax violations because of it. SO Cohen spent his own money to pay Daniels, created an LLC in his name to hide his transaction, Charged the Trump Administration 400K in 35K monthly payments for legal services.

 

You were doing pretty good except for some numbers you got wrong, until you got to you got to the point where you said " he has the legal right without it being considered a violation of Campaign Finance if it could be reasonably considered he would have settled with or without the campaign."
There are now 2 and possibly 3 that confirm Trump paid it to protect the campaign.

 

Agree... or to use condors own method..

For Cohen: Any contribution by a 3rd party to influence a campaign is a campaign contribution. Paying off Daniels to stop her story about Trump with Cohens own money falls into that category. He spent over the legal limit of $3500.00 hence the violation.

For Trump: Trump told Cohen to do it that way, for his part of the conspiracy.

 

You could have 5000 people stating why they think Trump did it and it doesn't have any bearing on the statute.
FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) Campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”

If Trump signed a settlement agreement and an NDA to stop information that would harm him, his business, or family reputation, and he states he would have done it irrelevant of a campaign, (as he has done in the past) you got nowhere to go.

 

I have no doubt Trump told Cohen to do it that way but you will never prove it unless you have an email or recorded conversation (not directing Cohen to pay her as that is what attorneys are for) but a conversation directing Cohen to do it illegally.

 

And I told you before. You have the wrong statue.
People get convicted all the time on witness testimony.

 

What are they going to testify about. Its hearsay if Trump didn't specify them to do it so the only witness you have is Cohen and he has been burned at the stake. He has a felony conviction for lying and now he is looking for a deal so he will say anything. His testimony is worthless.

Even if his testimony was credible, how are you going to prove what Trump thought at the time. Yes he directed Cohen to pay her. Thats what attorneys do. Now comes the sentencing statement from Mueller and the prosecutor stating Cohen did it with his own money and he did it to become Trumps fixer so he could gain access to millions in fees from clients who want to become insiders.

On top of which you have a convicted felon, who lost his law license for lying to the FBI, Who has been determined in Muellers own statement as a liar, who was illegally recording phone calls with his own clients that involves attorney client privilege information.

If you think for a second that Cohen's testimony has any credibility or they can get a conviction on Cohens testimony you are just reaching for the stars. The ONLY way you are even going to get a prosecuter to take this case is if you have actual recordings or emails directing Cohen to do this illegally by Trump.

 

Oh yes they do... but as several pointed out, the SDNY likely wouldn't have gone that far in the sentencing memo without something more than that...

 

I could have sworn FOX covered this:
In the agreement between prosecutors and AMI, which was signed on Sept. 20 but unsealed Wednesday, “AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election,” the press release read.

In April, ABC News reported that a search warrant executed by federal investigators at Cohen’s home, office and hotel room for documents and records belonging to Cohen included specific mentions of “AMI,” according to two sources familiar with the warrant.

Federal prosecutors said this week that at least one unidentified member of Donald Trump’s campaign joined his lawyer Michael Cohen and the publisher of the tabloid National Enquirer, David Pecker, in a 2015 scheme to kill unflattering news stories about the then-candidate as he sought the presidency.

The other individual present was Donald Trump himself, according to a person familiar with the matter who asked not to be identified.

http://time.com/5479678/donald-trump-hush-money-national-enquirer/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tab...-hush-money-payment-reaches/story?id=59779050

 

The one that hasn't leaked yet is what Alan Weisselberg told them.

 

Yeah, the more I think about that, I'm doubting Weisselberg will be as important as some think. I've seen 2 reports that he is an "unwilling" cooperator, only getting immunity for very limited items... I'm guessing his involvement will be more on the tail end (pun intentional) of the deal, like the repayment to Cohen. I understand he and Trump are reasonably close, going back to The Apprentice, but I don't see him as being super involved on the front end decision of making these payments, especially since neither payment came directly from Trump.

Sure hope I'm proven wrong...

 

I keep thinking back to the Cohen recording of Trump where he said he had it worked out with Alan.
They must have a ton of stuff from when they raided Cohen's office. The hardest part is matching it up.

Edit:
For our friend I'll attach it here.

 

I can see the logic there. But Cohen was spending money on Trump's behalf as his attorney, expecting to be reimbursed. This kind of transaction probably happens thousands of times a day. That Cohen tried to keep it secret is odd and maybe suspicious, but that seems to be Cohen's paranoia, not a criminal activity -- especially since no part or aspects of those payments are criminal.

 

Cohen made it clear that he paid Daniels and then billed Trump in 35K monthly payments for legal services. Thats what screwed him. If Trump gave him the money, Cohen deposited that money into his trust account, and dispersed that money to Daniels no law would have been broken.

 

I can see the logic, but it doesn't seem to apply to Cohen. He was not making any payments as Trump's lawyer that he did not expect to be reimbursed.

 

Says who? I expect that he did expect to get reimbursed, but was that spelled out anywhere or just orally (or just assumed)? That might be instructive to know, but we don't know that yet... Took him several months to submit his request for reimbursement...

Still doesn't remotely answer the question WHY they decided to go that direction. As everybody points out, not like Trump couldn't scrape together 130K for a wire transfer (??)...

 

Sounds like a problem for AMI

Sounds like a problem for AMI

Sounds like a problem for one unidentified member of Donald Trump’s campaign, Michael Cohen and, and David Pecker.

Yet another unidentified individual says. Haven't we seen a couple hundred of these. Why is it every time Trump is cornered its with an unidentified accuser, insider, individual, or expert that has never been panned out. EVER

 

Want to bet a $5 donation it will be proven to be Trump?

 

What is your definition of proven. If it's the undisclosed accuser, that isn't proven anything. Less we forget, that would be about the 437th time an undisclosed anonymous expert, insider, WH Adviser, source within the FBI, CIA Operative, source close to the president, or witness to the account have come forward for yet another nothing burger.

Not to mention how are you going to prove a crime was committed in August of 2015 to something that wasn't known about until June of 2016?

 

Interesting point.

The only problem is THIS:

Most of Trump's Echo Chamber is willing to get Blue in the Face "defending" anything that he does.

Trump could commit Murder on Live TV and the Trump Echo Chamber would be starting 20 threads to "defend" him.

Nothing personal, of course. And, I am certainly not applying any of the above sentences to you (personally). I am just speaking, in general, about the herd mentality of Trump's online "defenders".

And, given the REALITY of what I have stated above, it is extremely difficult to take any "defense" of Trump's behavior seriously.

Carry on and have a nice day.

 

Lets just say an identified source.
Oh, I forgot to point out, AMI has no problems, they got immunity from prosecution.
I don't think there are a lot of crimes solved before they are committed.