You're confusing campaign finance violations with campaign fraud.
The law says Trump can contribute as much money as he wants to his own campaign, but it also says he must be transparent about those payments on his FEC forms. By using Cohen to make shadow payments to the women off, he broken the laws on campaign finance, because the money was really Trump's money.
He also committed bank fraud when he subordinated Cohen to lie to his bank about the purpose of the home equity loan.
(Sigh)
Yes, I've read those documents.
The counts of campaign finance violations claim that the payment to Stormy Daniels was in the form of a "campaign contribution" from Cohen to "influence the election." That the creation of a shell corporation to do so abetted it. That being repaid by Trump with a bonus using Trump's own money via his wholly owned business was also somehow a violation.
As the former FEC Chairman explained in that video "influencing an election" is not necessarily a crime. That the non-disclosure agreement process was a standard legal practice when Cohen worked for Trump as his attorney. That the issue being paid for occurred well before the campaign and was not a result of the campaign. That Trump's use of his OWN money to reimburse Cohen shows it was NOT a "contribution" (who expects reimbursement for a contribution? With a BONUS, no less?).
Read the Sections cited. They are broad and general:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30118
[USC07] 52 USC 30109: Enforcement
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2
[USC10] 52 USC 30116: Limitations on contributions and expenditures
[USC07] 52 USC 30109: Enforcement
The whole plea agreement in regards to violation of campaign finance violations is a complete farce.
I've already read it. No where in there does it state that Trump used money from the campaign to pay Cohen. In fact it specifically states that Cohen was paid after the campaign was over. Which means he was paid by Trump using Trumps own personal money.
The following interview just occurred this evening and I watched the entire 30 minute presentation live on YouTube prior to the below video segment being posted there.
This 13 minute segment explains why Trump's use of Cohen (his attorney) to handle non-disclosure agreements with Stormy Daniels and the other women was not a violation of Campaign Finance restrictions.
That it did not matter where the money came from; Cohen, Trump, or Trump's business; as long as it wasn't funds raised specifically for the campaign there was nothing illegal in using such funds to pay for the Non-Disclosure agreements.
Moreover, while Cohen pled to guilty to alleged campaign finance violations, they were not in fact violations at all. That (according to the other participant Gregg Jarrett) Cohen pled guilty to a non-crime, and explains why.
Mr. Smith also explains how paying for something that positively influences a campaign is not necessarily a violation of Campaign law either.
A good listen, and IMO why we aren't hearing much about this in actual allegations against the President but rather it simply being touted by the anti-Administration elements of the MSM.
No you did not read the first link or you are lying, since starting on page 11 it indeed says why it was a crime. It explains why and how it was campaign finance violations even sites the laws. But hey why not just pretend that reality isnt reality and deny it altogether right?
You're confusing campaign finance violations with campaign fraud.
The law says Trump can contribute as much money as he wants to his own campaign, but it also says he must be transparent about those payments on his FEC forms. By using Cohen to make shadow payments to the women off, he broken the laws on campaign finance, because the money was really Trump's money.
He also committed bank fraud when he subordinated Cohen to lie to his bank about the purpose of the home equity loan.
Assumptions are also absolutely necessary to live a sane life. If a person on the sex predator list moves in next door you assume you should keep an eye on him around the local kids etc unless you know for a fact that he was wrongly convicted. Living life by the "well, he could have plead guilty to avoid a court case, I can't assume anything ever" is just not possible and probably very bad life advice.
Depends. Sometimes its good to assume. Other times its not.
I never said that it does. At least I never meant to say that. I understand there are some very complicated circumstances where someone may plead guilty because the penalties of fighting and losing seem so staggeringly high. But at the same time, I'd say that's a rare scenario. And it's not like we can figure out how many innocent people plead guilty just by asking them "did you really do it?" because guilty people are still inclined to say "I never did it, but i had to plead guilty for X reasons." But the main point is I never denied that it could happen.
My point was that the judge can reject a plea deal if the judge thought that there was no evidence of a crime. The judges opinion in this case seems to have a much more real world consequence than this ex-FEC official.
The many others? A quick google search can answer that. Are you of the impression that no serious people think that it's illegal?
Legal Experts: Campaign Finance Violations Are Crimes | Time
Again, I'm not saying that I know it's definitely one thing or another. I'm not an expert and won't pretend to be (others on this forum should take note) but the idea that this is completely settled and that Cohen just plead guilty to two counts that weren't crimes and that the judge just let him plead guilty to something that isn't a crime is just silliness. By everything I've seen the main argument seems to be "edwards wasn't found guilty therefor it's not a crime! Just drop it" when in reality that's like saying "If my ex wife is found dead and you find her blood in my car, and my gloves at her house covered in blood, etc then I won't be found guilty because OJ wasn't!" It's just not how the law works. Each case is different. People want to ignore that to pretend that everything is very simple. It's just not. They aren't the same. And apparently, numerous prosecutors and a judge allowed the Edwards case to go forward, even though he wasn't found guilty. If it was just an obvious fact that payoffs aren't campaign violations then it wouldn't have even gone forward.
Lets see here, the judge signed off on it, yet some guy on the internet thinks that he is more qualified than said judge. Perhaps you should reach out to the judge and tell him that he made a mistake? Or perhaps you just are ignorant of all the facts and your armchair judgement is crap?
Doesn't mean that he actually would have been found guilty of it. People can spin things all the time and make it sound very convincing. Wasn't there another person that actually had a trial for this same charge of paying a mistress and he was found not guilty? That is precedent.
Citing my own legal "creds" would be a meaningless and fallacious "appeal to authority" response, especially as I have no intention of "doxing" myself to prove any point on that basis.
Instead I'll point to the basis of your argument bolded above.
Judges "sign off" on plea deals ALL THE TIME. They may caution the Defendant on what they have agreed to, but they seldom debate the merits of the agreement itself. If you doubt this merely ask any known acquaintance of your own who works in the Criminal Defense or Prosecution fields. I am sure they could tell you all sorts of interesting stories.
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?