Ex-federal prosecutor: 'It's clear' Trump will be indicted on charges of violating campaign finance

[JacksinPA]

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ts-clear-trump-will-be-indicted-on-charges-of

Former federal prosecutor and Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy said Sunday that "it's clear" President Trump is the target of a Southern District of New York investigation and that he will be indicted.

“The Southern District of New York case on Cohen, They are clearly going after the president on campaign finance violations and I think if you read the sentencing memo the Southern District filed in Cohen’s case, it’s clear that Trump is the target and he’ll be indicted eventually,” McCarthy said on "Fox & Friends Weekend."
======================================================
Trump may have been clueless about breaking this law but his henchman Cohen, as a lawyer, should have advised him of the risks involved with paying hush money during the campaign.

 

[Amelia]

Trump could still slither out of it the way John Edwards slithered out of legal consequences for accepting a million dollars in donations to hide his misdeeds from the public.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Trump could still slither out of it the way John Edwards slithered out of legal consequences for accepting a million dollars in donations to hide his misdeeds from the public.

Yeah but there is still the fact that John Edwards no longer has a good reputation: he was disgraced and forced to hide from the public spotlight.

If there is one thing trump craves more than money, it is fame. He would never willingly step out of the public eye

 

[Common Sense 1]

Serial posting at it's worst?

 

[bubbabgone]

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ts-clear-trump-will-be-indicted-on-charges-of

Former federal prosecutor and Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy said Sunday that "it's clear" President Trump is the target of a Southern District of New York investigation and that he will be indicted.

“The Southern District of New York case on Cohen, They are clearly going after the president on campaign finance violations and I think if you read the sentencing memo the Southern District filed in Cohen’s case, it’s clear that Trump is the target and he’ll be indicted eventually,” McCarthy said on "Fox & Friends Weekend."
======================================================
Trump may have been clueless about breaking this law but his henchman Cohen, as a lawyer, should have advised him of the risks involved with paying hush money during the campaign.

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-p...ted-manhattan-us-attorney.html#post1069392460

 

[Mr Person]

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ts-clear-trump-will-be-indicted-on-charges-of

Former federal prosecutor and Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy said Sunday that "it's clear" President Trump is the target of a Southern District of New York investigation and that he will be indicted.

“The Southern District of New York case on Cohen, They are clearly going after the president on campaign finance violations and I think if you read the sentencing memo the Southern District filed in Cohen’s case, it’s clear that Trump is the target and he’ll be indicted eventually,” McCarthy said on "Fox & Friends Weekend."
======================================================
Trump may have been clueless about breaking this law but his henchman Cohen, as a lawyer, should have advised him of the risks involved with paying hush money during the campaign.

Ah, but have no fear: an indictment will clearly prove the existence of a vast liberal conspiracy to *get* him, which will be a perfect reason to support Melania the next time. And those liberals will be massive hypocrites if they don't vote for Melania because of their SJW behaviors. Yadda yadda.
______________




In other words (I'm now translating for others), we seem to be at a point where people will defend Trump no matter what he does and, if they can't stomach that, they'll instead go to threads about Trump and attack "liberals" rather than addressing the actual problem in the thread. Anything that has happened simply gets spun into because liberal conspiracy territory. If this forum represents America in any sense, than it is unlikely a post-presidency indictment of Trump will matter.....particularly if a different GOPer happens to win in 2020 then pardons him.

Fortunately federal juries, vetted before trial in court and after it by appellate counsel (to the extent possible), aren't so easily fooled. So perhaps he may very well go to jail if he has indeed committed crimes within the statutes of limitations.

Fingers crossed?





But still, politics will be broken. Is broken.

 

[Praxas]

Serial posting at it's worst?

What you jealous it’s not you with an anti-Hillary barrage of nonsense?

 

[JacksinPA]

On Cohen's secret recording of him discussing the $150K payment to AMI to bury the Karen MacDougal story, Trump is heard suggesting that the payment be in cash. Only drug lords & mobsters deal in such large sums of cash money. It shows you Trump's caliber.

 

[apdst]

Ah, but have no fear: an indictment will clearly prove the existence of a vast liberal conspiracy to *get* him, which will be a perfect reason to support Melania the next time. And those liberals will be massive hypocrites if they don't vote for Melania because of their SJW behaviors. Yadda yadda.
______________




In other words (I'm now translating for others), we seem to be at a point where people will defend Trump no matter what he does and, if they can't stomach that, they'll instead go to threads about Trump and attack "liberals" rather than addressing the actual problem in the thread. Anything that has happened simply gets spun into because liberal conspiracy territory. If this forum represents America in any sense, than it is unlikely a post-presidency indictment of Trump will matter.....particularly if a different GOPer happens to win in 2020 then pardons him.

Fortunately federal juries, vetted before trial in court and after it by appellate counsel (to the extent possible), aren't so easily fooled. So perhaps he may very well go to jail if he has indeed committed crimes within the statutes of limitations.

Fingers crossed?





But still, politics will be broken. Is broken.

Obama was caught with $2 million worth of campaign finance law violations. Why wasn't he charged? Or, need we ask?

I hope this double standard doesn't sit well with the people.

 

[Oborosen]

Obama was caught with $2 million worth of campaign finance law violations. Why wasn't he charged? Or, need we ask?

I hope this double standard doesn't sit well with the people.

Obama and Hillary both got caught, it's not like this kind of crap is new to the democratic party. But it's only a crime when the one caught isn't a democrat. Though I'm still skeptical about this going anywhere. Firstly they actually have to prove finance laws were broken by him and to the effect of it being intended. If this gets him convicted of anything, it's possible that it could bring the whole house of cards down on the democrats as well.

 

[wellwisher]

Obama and Hillary both got caught, it's not like this kind of crap is new to the democratic party. But it's only a crime when the one caught isn't a democrat. Though I'm still skeptical about this going anywhere. Firstly they actually have to prove finance laws were broken by him and to the effect of it being intended. If this gets him convicted of anything, it's possible that it could bring the whole house of cards down on the democrats as well.

The big difference with Trump is he was financing his own run for office, and there are fewer campaign restrictions when using your own money compared to using donor money. This will go nowhere. The entire exercise is for political optics and fake news misdirect.

 

[HenryChinaski]

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ts-clear-trump-will-be-indicted-on-charges-of

Former federal prosecutor and Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy said Sunday that "it's clear" President Trump is the target of a Southern District of New York investigation and that he will be indicted.

“The Southern District of New York case on Cohen, They are clearly going after the president on campaign finance violations and I think if you read the sentencing memo the Southern District filed in Cohen’s case, it’s clear that Trump is the target and he’ll be indicted eventually,” McCarthy said on "Fox & Friends Weekend."
======================================================
Trump may have been clueless about breaking this law but his henchman Cohen, as a lawyer, should have advised him of the risks involved with paying hush money during the campaign.

It’ll be when he leaves office. Whenever and however that may be.

 

[Captain America]

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ts-clear-trump-will-be-indicted-on-charges-of

Former federal prosecutor and Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy said Sunday that "it's clear" President Trump is the target of a Southern District of New York investigation and that he will be indicted.

“The Southern District of New York case on Cohen, They are clearly going after the president on campaign finance violations and I think if you read the sentencing memo the Southern District filed in Cohen’s case, it’s clear that Trump is the target and he’ll be indicted eventually,” McCarthy said on "Fox & Friends Weekend."
======================================================
Trump may have been clueless about breaking this law but his henchman Cohen, as a lawyer, should have advised him of the risks involved with paying hush money during the campaign.

I would loved to have watched that episode. I can just see the heads exploding on FOX and Friends when he said that. LOL! I would love to watch their heads explode. Maybe I should tune in now and again. Not. LOL!

 

[Buzz62]

On Cohen's secret recording of him discussing the $150K payment to AMI to bury the Karen MacDougal story, Trump is heard suggesting that the payment be in cash. Only drug lords & mobsters deal in such large sums of cash money. It shows you Trump's caliber.

:lamo
Now that's funny.
And your post here shows your caliber...:lamo

BTW...

In 2013, President Obama's campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission after his 2008 campaign did not turn in reports for about 1,300 last-minute donations that totaled nearly $1.9 million.
The fine was one of the largest against a presidential campaign and topped the $208,000 in civil penalties paid by the Rev. Al Sharpton after failing to accurately report receipts and spending during his 2004 presidential bid.
Republican Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign was fined $100,000.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...inance-violations-obama-different/1072220002/

Enjoy...:roll:

 

[apdst]

Trump could still slither out of it the way John Edwards slithered out of legal consequences for accepting a million dollars in donations to hide his misdeeds from the public.

Edwards didn't "slither out of it". One jury aquitted him and another jury was deadlocked.

 

[American]

https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-p...ted-manhattan-us-attorney.html#post1069392460

He'll have to wait till after Trump is out of office.

 

[Moderate Right]

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ts-clear-trump-will-be-indicted-on-charges-of

Former federal prosecutor and Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy said Sunday that "it's clear" President Trump is the target of a Southern District of New York investigation and that he will be indicted.

“The Southern District of New York case on Cohen, They are clearly going after the president on campaign finance violations and I think if you read the sentencing memo the Southern District filed in Cohen’s case, it’s clear that Trump is the target and he’ll be indicted eventually,” McCarthy said on "Fox & Friends Weekend."
======================================================
Trump may have been clueless about breaking this law but his henchman Cohen, as a lawyer, should have advised him of the risks involved with paying hush money during the campaign.

This whole thing is absolute 100% proof that the whole thing is indeed a witch hunt. Mueller was supposed to be investigating Russian collusion to influence the elections and obstruction of justice, not campaign finance law violations. The left claim that there was enough evidence on Trump regarding these things before the Mueller investigation even began. And yet, here we are with the left saying there is evidence for campaign finance law violations and not one word about what the Mueller investigation was all about. A witch hunt is when you continually investigate and investigate and investigate someone until you finally find something you can charge him with.

 

[Deuce]

Obama was caught with $2 million worth of campaign finance law violations. Why wasn't he charged? Or, need we ask?

I hope this double standard doesn't sit well with the people.

I've explained this to you before. Not all campaign finance violations are equal.

Like "I forgot to file my taxes on time" and "money laundering" are both tax law violations and you're just dumbfounded that only one of them sends people to prison.

 

[Barnacle]

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ts-clear-trump-will-be-indicted-on-charges-of

Former federal prosecutor and Fox News contributor Andrew McCarthy said Sunday that "it's clear" President Trump is the target of a Southern District of New York investigation and that he will be indicted.

“The Southern District of New York case on Cohen, They are clearly going after the president on campaign finance violations and I think if you read the sentencing memo the Southern District filed in Cohen’s case, it’s clear that Trump is the target and he’ll be indicted eventually,” McCarthy said on "Fox & Friends Weekend."
======================================================
Trump may have been clueless about breaking this law but his henchman Cohen, as a lawyer, should have advised him of the risks involved with paying hush money during the campaign.

Here is the quote from another "ex" - this one from a former Federal Election Commission chair:

…[R]egardless of what Cohen agreed to in a plea bargain, hush-money payments to mistresses are not really campaign expenditures. It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.

Suppose, for example, that Trump had told his lawyers, “Look, these complaints about Trump University have no merit, but they embarrass me as a candidate. Get them settled.” Are the settlements thus “campaign expenses”? The obvious answer is no, even though the payments were intended to benefit Trump as a candidate.

If the opposite were true and they were considered campaign expenses, then not only could Trump pay them with campaign funds, but also he would be required to pay these business expenses from campaign funds. Is that what campaign donations are for?

[…]

Yes, those payments were unseemly, but unseemliness doesn’t make something illegal. At the very least, the law is murky about whether paying hush money to a mistress is a “campaign expense” or a personal expense.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...-hush-money-unseemly-but-not-illegal-n2512451

 

[trixare4kids]

Here is the quote from another "ex" - this one from a former Federal Election Commission chair:

…[R]egardless of what Cohen agreed to in a plea bargain, hush-money payments to mistresses are not really campaign expenditures. It is true that “contribution” and “expenditure” are defined in the Federal Election Campaign Act as anything “for the purpose of influencing any election,” and it may have been intended and hoped that paying hush money would serve that end. The problem is that almost anything a candidate does can be interpreted as intended to “influence an election,” from buying a good watch to make sure he gets to places on time, to getting a massage so that he feels fit for the campaign trail, to buying a new suit so that he looks good on a debate stage. Yet having campaign donors pay for personal luxuries — such as expensive watches, massages and Brooks Brothers suits — seems more like bribery than funding campaign speech.

That’s why another part of the statute defines “personal use” as any expenditure “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.” These may not be paid with campaign funds, even though the candidate might benefit from the expenditure. Not every expense that might benefit a candidate is an obligation that exists solely because the person is a candidate.

Suppose, for example, that Trump had told his lawyers, “Look, these complaints about Trump University have no merit, but they embarrass me as a candidate. Get them settled.” Are the settlements thus “campaign expenses”? The obvious answer is no, even though the payments were intended to benefit Trump as a candidate.

If the opposite were true and they were considered campaign expenses, then not only could Trump pay them with campaign funds, but also he would be required to pay these business expenses from campaign funds. Is that what campaign donations are for?

[…]

Yes, those payments were unseemly, but unseemliness doesn’t make something illegal. At the very least, the law is murky about whether paying hush money to a mistress is a “campaign expense” or a personal expense.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...-hush-money-unseemly-but-not-illegal-n2512451

Agree...
Remember these tweets?

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Mr. Cohen, an attorney, received a monthly retainer, not from the campaign and having nothing to do with the campaign, from which he entered into, through reimbursement, a private contract between two parties, known as a non-disclosure agreement, or NDA. These agreements are.....

71.4K
2:46 AM - May 3, 2018


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
...very common among celebrities and people of wealth. In this case it is in full force and effect and will be used in Arbitration for damages against Ms. Clifford (Daniels). The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair,......

73.3K
2:54 AM - May 3, 2018

Source for above tweets:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-giuliani-michael-cohen-fact-check/579337002/

 

[trixare4kids]

Edwards didn't "slither out of it". One jury aquitted him and another jury was deadlocked.

"Slither out" to the Trump haters means Democrat Edwards didn't get what they think Republican Trump deserves. :lol:

 

[trixare4kids]

I've explained this to you before. Not all campaign finance violations are equal.

Like "I forgot to file my taxes on time" and "money laundering" are both tax law violations and you're just dumbfounded that only one of them sends people to prison.

Despite your wishful thinking, Trump is not going to prison. :lol:

 

[Deuce]

Despite your wishful thinking, Trump is not going to prison. :lol:

Not while he's in office, no. There aren't any circumstances in which the GOP would remove him.

 

[trixare4kids]

Not while he's in office, no. There aren't any circumstances in which the GOP would remove him.

He's not going to prison EVER.
Mark time and date when I said this.

Thanks.

 

[Deuce]

He's not going to prison EVER.
Mark time and date when I said this.

Thanks.

Rich people often avoid prison for the crimes they commit, true.