Deliberately not reporting payments or contributions is a crime, regardless of where the money came from.
I am also not a legal scholar but the reality is that he paid to keep the information from being known to the public, specifically just before the election, thus influencing the election. That may be the big sticking point "paying for something to influence the election in his favor".
Imagine if Hillary had paid to keep the personal servers from being discovered and it was proven. How would that have been seen?
Just knowing that she had personal servers was bad enough, but a cover up would have been a criminal offense. In Trump's case, knowing he had extra-marital affairs was a negative but covering them up with payments is criminal, in my opinion.
Perhaps, but it typically results in a fine. I doubt Trump would much care if he had to pay a FEC fine (like Obama did?).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d8773594efc_story.html?utm_term=.c1852435600a
Perhaps, but it typically results in a fine. I doubt Trump would much care if he had to pay a FEC fine (like Obama did?).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...d8773594efc_story.html?utm_term=.c1852435600a
Obama's fine was for what came down to a mistake. Trump's actions, if true, were deliberate. Apples to oranges here.
Why do you continue to make an argument that you and I both know is dishonest because I, and several others, have already explained to you that unintentionally not reporting something results in a fine while deliberately not reporting something is a felony?
See post #55.
There are many aspects to this investigation that is evident, first and foremost being that Mueller intentionally inflated the investigation far beyond that of Russian collusion in regards to election activities. Once Mueller decided Manafort's conduct of many years prior to the election was to be re-investigated (in prior years the FBI had wire-tapped him more than once, apparently finding nothing actionable) we all knew the original purpose had changed to "get Trump's associates and then Trump because of who they are". The motive was so transparent that Rod Rosenstein had to create the paperwork in August of 2017 to RETROACTIVELY expand and justify Mueller's conduct that had already taken place.
And it is evident that because there is no substantive "collusion" with the Russians, Mueller raided Trump's attorney's office as a direct assault on Trump's personal (and lurid) history and his business.
So now that investigation has zero point zero relevance to is original purpose, the anti-Trump hysterics are "indicting a ham sandwich", using lawfare to achieve political ends. So let's look at this latest transparently political ploy:
1) It's not a criminal campaign finance law violation to pay for anything campaign related using your own funds. To the degree that Cohen paid the money for Trump (re Stormy Daniels), as his attorney he merely floated an expense, representing Trump, to be reimbursed by Trump. Case closed.
2) In the case of the National Enquirer's purchase of the exclusive rights to Karen McDougal's story, Trump did not pay for it. If the purchase of an exclusive is illegal because it is intended to "influences an election" then all such stories in elections are "in-kind contributions", whether they are published or not. What a paper does with a story always influences an election, and is often meant to do so. In other words, its called freedom of the press. Trump did not direct a felony because it was not a felony.
3) And its even unclear if the law being used is being properly understood. The law is for no other purpose than to deter corruption (bribery of the elected) and to check the "undue influence" of economic interests. Yet, neither the Trump-Cohen expenditures have anything to do with "corruption" or the undue influence of economic interests. Candidates that fund themselves directly or indirectly are being influenced by themselves, and those accused in this case of in-kind contributions are not motivated by bribery, but personal support.
4) Bradley A. Smith, former chair of the FEC (and one of the few leading authorities on election law) has stated:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stormy-weather-for-campaign-finance-laws-1523398987
All of which leads to the absurd catch 22: if this expense would not exist but for the campaign, then it must be paid by campaign funds (of which he can contribute as much as he likes). Then, of course, if Trump had directed the campaign to do so, he would be accused of using campaign funds for private hush money and could be impeached for that.
Needless to say, this is what happens when law is ssstttttrrrreaaachhhhed to the point of incoherency.
"According to Cohen".... there's your sign.
He's giving in to Mueller's extortion attempts.
There are many aspects to this investigation that is evident, first and foremost being that Mueller intentionally inflated the investigation far beyond that of Russian collusion in regards to election activities. Once Mueller decided Manafort's conduct of many years prior to the election was to be re-investigated (in prior years the FBI had wire-tapped him more than once, apparently finding nothing actionable) we all knew the original purpose had changed to "get Trump's associates and then Trump because of who they are". The motive was so transparent that Rod Rosenstein had to create the paperwork in August of 2017 to RETROACTIVELY expand and justify Mueller's conduct that had already taken place.
And it is evident that because there is no substantive "collusion" with the Russians, Mueller raided Trump's attorney's office as a direct assault on Trump's personal (and lurid) history and his business.
So now that investigation has zero point zero relevance to is original purpose, the anti-Trump hysterics are "indicting a ham sandwich", using lawfare to achieve political ends. So let's look at this latest transparently political ploy:
1) It's not a criminal campaign finance law violation to pay for anything campaign related using your own funds. To the degree that Cohen paid the money for Trump (re Stormy Daniels), as his attorney he merely floated an expense, representing Trump, to be reimbursed by Trump. Case closed.
2) In the case of the National Enquirer's purchase of the exclusive rights to Karen McDougal's story, Trump did not pay for it. If the purchase of an exclusive is illegal because it is intended to "influences an election" then all such stories in elections are "in-kind contributions", whether they are published or not. What a paper does with a story always influences an election, and is often meant to do so. In other words, its called freedom of the press. Trump did not direct a felony because it was not a felony.
3) And its even unclear if the law being used is being properly understood. The law is for no other purpose than to deter corruption (bribery of the elected) and to check the "undue influence" of economic interests. Yet, neither the Trump-Cohen expenditures have anything to do with "corruption" or the undue influence of economic interests. Candidates that fund themselves directly or indirectly are being influenced by themselves, and those accused in this case of in-kind contributions are not motivated by bribery, but personal support.
4) Bradley A. Smith, former chair of the FEC (and one of the few leading authorities on election law) has stated:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stormy-weather-for-campaign-finance-laws-1523398987
All of which leads to the absurd catch 22: if this expense would not exist but for the campaign, then it must be paid by campaign funds (of which he can contribute as much as he likes). Then, of course, if Trump had directed the campaign to do so, he would be accused of using campaign funds for private hush money and could be impeached for that.
Needless to say, this is what happens when law is ssstttttrrrreaaachhhhed to the point of incoherency.
I don't have to wait for them to finish burning the witch at the stake, before I can see if that there is a witch hunt.What you are saying is that because it all started with the accusation of collusion, if no collusion is found but what is found is that other laws have been broken, it should be ignored?
Are we not a nation based on laws and when laws are broken, are we not supposed to go after the perpetrator?
As far as collusion, it has not yet been determined that there was none. As such, you cannot make the statement that it is a Witch Hunt against Trump.
Just this morning, it was said that there is now proof Russians tied to Putin associated with 14 Trump associates. Let me spell it out for you:
R U S S I A N S tied to Putin contacted and had associations with 14 T R U M P A S S O C I A T E S. That is a whole lot of coincidence isn't it. I think too much for it not to mean some type of collusion.
I don't have to wait for them to finish burning the witch at the stake, before I can see if that there is a witch hunt.
What I said was pretty clear: the FBI investigation started to identify reasonable leads at instances of Russia interfering with election and it veered into a determined attempt to get Trump and his associates on any pretext - real or imagined. Hence, folks like Flynn who had done nothing other than do what transition team members do to prepare, was asked to answer questions that the prosecutor already knew the answer too - entrapment.
And Manafort who had been cleared more than once in previous FBI tapes years before joining the Trump campaign were targeted for activities years before (which had nothing to do with Russians interfering with the election or Trump collusion).
Its clear to me that ethical and responsible adherence to the purpose of the investigation were trashed, intentionally.
I'm sorry, but guilt by association has been discredited since Joseph McCarthy and his communist witch hunts; I'm sure anyone who does, or wants to do, business in Russia knows (and has to know) one of a multitude of Russian officials and business oligarchs with conneTctions to Putin - my guess it would run into the thousands - just as many score of state department and defense department personnel do as well.
The "network" graphic was not serious - its nothing more than a bunch of independent associations for independent purposes and often for official reasons. Its not a network, its a flip card of little charts of a couple of people at 3rd and 4th degrees of separation. In short, I could care less if Rex Tillerson (who Trump hates) knows dozens of high level oil executives, including those in Russia - that was his EXXON job (ssshhhheeesh).
This isn't improbable, its almost required for the individual duties and purposes intended. And no, its not a CONSPIRACY!
It never ceases to amaze me how Trump supporters keep on giving him the benefit of the doubt, especially considering that no benefit of the doubt was given to Hillary.
Over and over again, Trump acts like a mobster with ties to the Russian mafia and you guys pooh-pooh it. One time, okay, a second time perhaps, a third time a stretch of the imagination but over 100 times is a pattern of crime.
In addition, you seem to be forgetting that both Flynn and Manafort pleaded guilty. When have you ever seen an innocent man that has the President as a friend plead guilty to anything. Common sense would suggest that they pleaded guilty so they could get away from even more criminal stuff.
You are not using your common sense. You are acting like a sect member that blindly believes in the cult boss no matter the hundreds of "coincidences" that prove the opposite.
As I have alway said and will always say "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck". You are saying that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is an mimicking elephant.
I feel sorry for the day that Trump himself will turn on you (a Trump supporter) and do the same thing he has done to many of the people that believed and trusted him, starting with Cohen and Sessions who were his staunchest supporters.
Here is another proof of what I am saying:
View attachment 67245795
Think about it. True stat.
It never ceases to amaze me how Trump supporters keep on giving him the benefit of the doubt, especially considering that no benefit of the doubt was given to Hillary.
Over and over again, Trump acts like a mobster with ties to the Russian mafia and you guys pooh-pooh it. One time, okay, a second time perhaps, a third time a stretch of the imagination but over 100 times is a pattern of crime.
In addition, you seem to be forgetting that both Flynn and Manafort pleaded guilty. When have you ever seen an innocent man that has the President as a friend plead guilty to anything. Common sense would suggest that they pleaded guilty so they could get away from even more criminal stuff. [/quote
You are not using your common sense. You are acting like a sect member that blindly believes in the cult boss no matter the hundreds of "coincidences" that prove the opposite....
As I have alway said and will always say "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck". You are saying that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is an mimicking elephant.
Similes and aphorisms about what trump acts like, combined with your vague references to unspecified "coincidences", is not coherent, let alone an argument. A conspiracy theory narrative at least needs a point other than fuzzy alarmism and a personal dislike of Trump - which you haven't provided.
Disbelieving coincidences are when all of the witnesses with connections to whitewater and the Clinton crime family die, their long time friend and white house attorney commits suicide, and the payroll records that were missing two years shows up on the white house dining table.
None the less, I don't have to believe the Clintons had them killed (well, not all of them) . Clinton Body Count
What?
Are you sure of what you are saying? That just doesn't make sense "giving in to Mueller's extortion attempts". He is going to go to jail, having declared himself guilty. There is no Mueller extortion attempt that would make anyone plead guilty and do jail time. That is patently ridiculous.
In addition, Cohen was doing Trump's bidding for everything. If anyone should go go jail, it is Trump, not Cohen. Since when does the boss get a pass and the minion get the axe? Think!
Lock Him Up (Trump)! It might just happen. Often what one says (Lock her up - Hillary) comes back to bite the one that is saying it. It would be perfect irony.
He hasn't done any time yet. Look at what Mueller said about Flynn. "Recommends no jail time" Cohen was nailed for other actions that had nothing to do with Trump. He could have gone away for years not months.
I don't have to wait for them to finish burning the witch at the stake, before I can see if that there is a witch hunt.
What I said was pretty clear: the FBI investigation started to identify reasonable leads at instances of Russia interfering with election and it veered into a determined attempt to get Trump and his associates on any pretext - real or imagined. Hence, folks like Flynn who had done nothing other than do what transition team members do to prepare, was asked to answer questions that the prosecutor already knew the answer too - entrapment.
And Manafort who had been cleared more than once in previous FBI tapes years before joining the Trump campaign were targeted for activities years before (which had nothing to do with Russians interfering with the election or Trump collusion).
Its clear to me that ethical and responsible adherence to the purpose of the investigation were trashed, intentionally.
I'm sorry, but guilt by association has been discredited since Joseph McCarthy and his communist witch hunts; I'm sure anyone who does, or wants to do, business in Russia knows (and has to know) one of a multitude of Russian officials and business oligarchs with conneTctions to Putin - my guess it would run into the thousands - just as many score of state department and defense department personnel do as well.
The "network" graphic was not serious - its nothing more than a bunch of independent associations for independent purposes and often for official reasons. Its not a network, its a flip card of little charts of a couple of people at 3rd and 4th degrees of separation. In short, I could care less if Rex Tillerson (who Trump hates) knows dozens of high level oil executives, including those in Russia - that was his EXXON job (ssshhhheeesh).
This isn't improbable, its almost required for the individual duties and purposes intended. And no, its not a CONSPIRACY!
Your words:
"Trump, as a candidate, may still legitimately worry that since he is a candidate, any possible dirt about him will be sought after and possibly disclosed."
I.E. a campaign payment.
That may be the big sticking point "paying for something to influence the election in his favor".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?