Non Disclosure agreements are legal
At the end of the day, a non-disclosure agreement is legal. It has to remain legal (one way or the other) for anyone, including a candidate for President. So in these regards, there has to be a legal manner for a political candidate to make a legal expenditure.
The Federal Elections Committee ruled that non-disclosure agreements are not campaign contributions, because they serve the duel purpose of helping a person and the campaign.
Only expenditures that exclusively help the campaign can be claimed as campaign expenses. Otherwise, candidates could use campaign funds to pay for things that otherwise benefit the candidate. You cannot (for instance) purchase a new suit for a public campaign appearance out of campaign funds, because you can also use that suit for personal reasons. It's not considered a campaign contribution if it is a 60-40 split, a 70-30 split, or even a 99-1 split. It has to be "exclusively" helpful to the campaign.
Does anyone believe that Trump haters would not be enraged if they found out that he had used campaign funds to pay off a non-disclosure agreement?
Ultimately every transaction has a binary definition. It has to be one or the other in a consistent manner. You cannot make something like a NDA illegal to be used out of campaign funds (because it serves a candidate), but also illegal to be done out of private funds (because it serves the campaign). You also cannot decide to make it situational. It has to be one or the other, and the FEC has a ruling on record. Trump followed the FEC set ruling on the subject. You really going to indict a candidate for following FEC rulings?
Michael Cohen's "admission" that he paid for the NDA out of his pocket is a false statement.
There is written contract regarding the NDA's between Trump and Cohen. It specifically provides repayment to Cohen, plus extra in legal fees to be paid out over a specific period of time. The fact that he may (or may not) have fronted the money is not the same thing as paying for it yourself. Cohen's statements within his plea agreement are actually false.
Michael Cohen statement that he violated campaign contributions at the request of Trump are misleading at best, and possibly an outright falsehood.
We have seen communications between Trump and Cohen, and it is clear based on these communications that Cohen was making the recommendations and putting things in motion. While it is probably true that Trump tasked Cohen with setting up the NDA (as he had done previously), in order for Cohen's statement to be actually "true" - there must have been written or verbal communication that Trump knew this was a campaign violation. Trump simply telling Cohen to garner a NDA gets you no closer to an admission of a crime. In fact, if there is communication (that lacks any talk of whether or not they should be using campaign funds) then it goes to bolster the idea that Trump never believed that the NDA were a campaign expense. Why would he? The FEC had ruled that they were not.
Michael Cohen did not work for the Trump Campaign. He was Trump's personal attorney.
If Trump was looking at this from the standpoint that it was a campaign related issue, then it would have likely been handled by someone within the campaign. The fact that Trump used a personal attorney to handle this, while using personal funding (outside of the campaign) suggests that this was by all legal purposes a personal expenditure.
The manner in which Cohen was paid and how it was reported is exactly the same way the dnc and Hillary campaign handled the payment to Richard Steele.
In both cases, the money was provided through a second party corporation and expensed as a legal expenditure. The interesting thing is that Cohen was actually an attorney who was creating a legal document, making the expense to be fairly honest. Whereas, there is little reasonable manner to justify that Richard Steele's dossier was a legal expense.
.
37 million dollars in legal settlements were made out of Congressional funds.
Are those all campaign violations as well? Or are the laws different for Trump?
Campaign violations are rarely handled with criminal prosecutions. Only the most egregious examples are prosecuted.
The Obama campaign was found to have committed over two million dollars worth of campaign finance violations. Nobody was prosecuted. The campaign (no individual) was required to pay a fine of $325,000. By relative comparison, $130,000 campaign violation would be subject to a $22,000 fine. Not jail time.
Michael Cohen was not "convicted" of this crime. No jury made the determination. He actually plead guilty of this "crime" to reduce his sentence elsewhere.
Ultimately, Trump (if indicted) would fight this in court. The prosecutors would have to build a case that contradicts FEC rulings on the subject. Come forth with a witness whose statements provided can be proven false. Ultimately finding themselves in a less credible position than they did when the Justice Department attempted to charge John Edwards with a similar action. Such a prosecution would look political, look partisan, largely because it would be political and partisan.
91 comments:
Alleged Russian agent poised to plead guilty in case involving attempts to influence NRA
Attorneys for Maria Butina and prosecutors have asked to set a time for the Russian gun rights activist to withdraw her previous plea of not guilty.
This is the case to watch especially if money is traced from russia to the NRA which was then funneled to candidates campaigns....the real collusion colliding with trump.....lOLOLOL
The Obama campaign was found to have committed over two million dollars worth of campaign finance violations. Nobody was prosecuted
Because they were civil penalties for paperwork errors and lateness....Trumps problems are felonies.....something you refuse to acknowledge as you provide false equivalencies as your only defense....Lil Scottty, you are truly a trump slurper loser....LOLOL
here is an interesting quote:
FEC commissioner Ann Ravel
“there are always reporting violations in campaigns. Many of them minor, many of them substantive.… But in this case… what was admitted to by Cohen was that there was a clear intent to use campaign money for the purpose of keeping the individuals quiet right before the election for campaign purposes.”
So the problem according to the FEC commissioner is that she believed Trump was attempting to use campaign finances to pay for keeping an individual quiet...
Which she feels would be against the law.
But in fact, Cohen was using non-campaign money (technically Trump's money) to pay for this as a personal legal expense. Which is how the FEC commissioner obviously felt it should have been done.
Ironically... she believes that the way the prosecutors says Cohen "should" have done it (by using campaign money and declaring it as a campaign expense) would have been an illegal campaign expenditure.
Funny stuff.
Edwards was trying to keep the information from his family. Not to influence the outcome of an election.
Your case isn't going to be acceptable to a judge in this case to dismiss the charges against the defendant-1 from breaking the campaign laws. The $130,000 is inexcess the limit from an individual.
Trump directed his personal lawyer to commit felonies.
The motive is pretty obvious Scott. If Daniels had spoken out about the same time that Comey was pursuing a case on the email charges, that were later dismissed because of the lack of evidence.
Would it have changed the 72,000 votes in the three critical states?
We will never know.
The funny stuff is the use of an irrelevant case to dismiss the charges against the President.
Roger Amick said...
Edwards was trying to keep the information from his family. Not to influence the outcome of an election.
a distinction without a difference as it relates to trump's case, alky.
rational people can grasp this. your TDS-fueled "we must save america from trump!!!11!!" histrionics? - not so much.
Ironically... she believes that the way the prosecutors says Cohen "should" have done it (by using campaign money and declaring it as a campaign expense) would have been an illegal campaign expenditure.
Funny stuff.
it's amazing how TDS even seems to have affected those charged with playing this straight down the middle.
this nit wit is disappointed that cohen didn't do things the way she would have wanted to to achieve her desired outcome, and subsequent crime.
what an asshole.
there's the deep state, and then there's the derp state. she must fly both flags on her missions to depose the president.
Edwards was trying to keep the information from his family. Not to influence the outcome of an election.
Edwards and Trump did THE EXACT SAME THING - other than who paid for it. In Edward's case it was political donors who claimed they were doing it for personal (not political) reasons. Trump, on the other hand, paid for it himself.
If anything... the fact that political donors (rather than Edwards) paid for the NDA's provides more evidence that it was political in nature. Why the hell would political donors care what happened to Edward's marriage.
Oh wait... I forgot.
Someone "told you" that Trump's NDA were illegal.
You cannot think for yourself.
My bad.
The funny stuff is the use of an irrelevant case to dismiss the charges against the President.
What the fuck are you babbling about?
The FEC rulings on NDAs and failed prosecution regarding NDA's is about as relevant as you can get.
Unless...
Unless....
Wait for it...
It's different... because it's "TRUMP"
TDS!!!!
Got it!!
A simple private transaction.
You're spouting the party line.
Your only way to avoid the truth is that you have to attack the person who has exposed your lies.
Your opinion is once again the innocence of the President. Not any contrary information. Just like the President you follow your gut feelings.
In your case you have made it clear that
It's different... because it's "TRUMP"
If you applied the same standards towards (Crooked Hillary) you would be claiming that she was completely innocent.
Earlier this year, Cohen pleaded guilty to facilitating the payment of hush money to women who had allegedly had affairs with Trump during the lead up to the 2016 general elections. While under oath, he stated he did so “at the direction of” Trump.
It's a clear violation of the campaign laws.
Go ahead take it to court. The President is going to face charges on the day his successor is sworn in. I hope that he is handcuffed and escorted out of the White House.
In 2012, Obama’s 2008 campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for reporting violations. The issue, however, was over the documentation of donations made in the 20 days prior to the elections as the FEC required that all contributions made exceeding $1,000 during that time be submitted as an official notice within 48 hours after they are received.
Trump compared Cohen’s violation to that made by Obama in an August tweet, claiming the former president's case was “easily settled.” However, Trump nor you did not note that the U.S. Justice Department brought criminal charges against Cohen, whereas the FEC brought civil violations against Obama’s campaign.
Neither Trump nor his lawyer reported any contributions to the FEC as required by the law.
Scott babbled upon Someone "told you" that Trump's NDA were illegal.
U.S. Justice Department brought criminal charges against Cohen, whereas the FEC brought civil violations against Obama’s campaign.
Someone "told you" that Trump's NDA were illegal.
You cannot think for yourself.
U.S. Justice Department brought criminal charges against Cohen.
The facts baffle you.
No wonder your page views are diminished
Someone "told you" that Trump's NDA were illegal.
Roger
The FEC stated that an NDA is not a campaign expense. You know, the Federal Election Commission. The people who make these calls for a living?
Trump will never be impeached or convicted of this. I know it. You know it. Everyone with a capable brain knows it.
You know it. Everyone with a capable brain knows it.
Opps... my apologies. Maybe you don't know it.
Scott. One more time.
"The Obama campaign was found to have committed over two million dollars worth of campaign finance violations. Nobody was prosecuted. The campaign (no individual) was required to pay a fine of $325,000. By relative comparison, $130,000 campaign violation would be subject to a $22,000 fine. Not jail time."
The Obama campaign complied with regulations. The reported documentation of donations made in the 20 days prior to the election in the excess as required at the time.
Obama’s 2008 campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for reporting violations.
Impeached? No.
But he directed his lawyer to commit a crime.
He could and should face criminal charges once he is no longer the President.
“Democrats can’t find a Smocking Gun tying the Trump campaign to Russia after James Comey’s testimony. No Smocking Gun...No Collusion.” @FoxNews That’s because there was NO COLLUSION. So now the Dems go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution,...
....which it was not (but even if it was, it is only a CIVIL CASE, like Obama’s - but it was done correctly by a lawyer and there would not even be a fine. Lawyer’s liability if he made a mistake, not me). Cohen just trying to get his sentence reduced. WITCH HUNT!
In a couple more hundred words, you were following the orders for the President.
FYI I haven't been reading the Fake News.
I didn't depend upon the President and Fox News like you did..
alky,
the bottom line here is that as much as you despise trump and wish to remove him from the presidency, neither the NDA's or the payments to the two whores can be construed as campaign finance violations - civil OR criminal, just because you demand that it be so.
you can copy and paste until your fucking head explodes but simply cannot wish something to be true that is NOT.
He could and should face criminal charges once he is no longer the President.
even if that were to be true, and it is NOT, if trump wins reelection he can't be charged until 2024. and guess fucking what??? the statute of limitations will have run out on his alleged and fictitious "CRIME."
you want to be rid of trump alky?
do what 0linsky described and beat the fucking guy in an election.
until then, stop with the fucking coup attempt, because that's exactly what this is. and if it weren't for your stage IV TDS, and your unlimited capacity for intellectual dishonesty, you'd admit this.
for chrissakes, grow the fuck up.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
FYI I haven't been reading the Fake News.
ok, then please share. who's the dumb fuck who has convinced you that trump has committed a felony via a campaign contribution violation?
i'd really like to compare notes because i JUST finished listening to hillary supporter and noted liberal alan dershowitz explain for the umpteenth fucking time how what trump did is in no way, shape, or form a campaign contribution violation, nor a felony.
so who's your legal source rog?
let me guess...
lawrence o'donnell?
ralph maddow?
it can't be anyone with an actual law degree, that's for sure.
You really are following orders.
Trump suggested that the payments were being scrutinized only because investigators have not been able to find evidence of collusion between his 2016 campaign and Russia.
He also blamed Democrats for the scrutiny — a day after some high-profile members of the party appeared on Sunday talk shows and suggested Trump faces serious legal jeopardy.
“So now the Dems go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution, which it was not,” Trump wrote.
He further asserted that even if the payments could be considered campaign contributions, he should be facing a civil case rather than a criminal case. And he said, Cohen should be held responsible, not him.
The Fake News Washington Post
Roger
NDAs have nothing to do with Obama. They deal with Edwards.
I'll make it simple.
Two Presidential candidates.
Both engage in NDAs with women
One candidate uses personal money to pay for it, and uses his personal attorney to facilitate it.
The other uses political donors to ay for it, and uses campaign staff to facilitate it.
How do you make the argument that the former is a campaign expenditure, but the latter is not.
Without cutting and pasting or repeating the irrelevant concept that a third party agreed to an irrelevant plea that reduced his sentence...
Explain it with your own logic?
Explainin both why one was AND the other wasn't?
"I wrote it. Not a copy and paste " 2nd Generation Alky.
Yes, we know. It shows.
Lawrence Tribe and other lawyers disagree with the paper pusher from Minnesota.
He directed his lawyer to break the fucking law.
So Rog...
You have no response other than to get frustrated that you have no answer...
and rather than provide your logic
You simply repeat your assertion with a profanity. As if the profanity makes your case.
Roger
Do I need to repeat the question?.
Individual-1 is clearly directed his lawyer to break the fucking law.
You keep saying that the money to pay off the women who had affairs are a NDA. In other words just a political action is completely within the law. No Disclosure Agreement.
That's what the President and Giuliani are saying. Former prosecutors and the Department of Justice do not accept that assessment. It's not a First Amendment rights to give money to pay off a woman to remain silent.
You insist that the Individual-1 directing his attorney to break the law is not illegal because it's just to shut her up. You cherry picked something irrelevant to call it just a NDA.
You agree with the President who has a long history of comments on the laws are incorrect.
NO COLLUSION. So now the Dems go to a simple private transaction, wrongly call it a campaign contribution,...
The DOJ differs. You seem to think that you are a very good lawyer.
Roger
You need to get your facts straight.
Nobody denies it was a non-disclosure agreement.
That is the definition of paying hush money.
Are you seriouly arguing that non-disclosure is not legal?
Are you seriously suggesting that the Justice department is claiming that the action itself was illegal?
They are claiming that it IS a valid campaign expense, but that it wasn't properly reported and that Cohen went over his limit of $2700. Even though the FEC says it's not something that you can use campaign funds for, and despite a contract showing how Trump was paying for it.
44 Former U.S. Senators December 10 at 8:30 PM
Dear Senate colleagues,
As former members of the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans, it is our shared view that we are entering a dangerous period, and we feel an obligation to speak up about serious challenges to the rule of law, the Constitution, our governing institutions and our national security.
We are on the eve of the conclusion of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation and the House’s commencement of investigations of the president and his administration. The likely convergence of these two events will occur at a time when simmering regional conflicts and global power confrontations continue to threaten our security, economy and geopolitical stability.
It is a time, like other critical junctures in our history, when our nation must engage at every level with strategic precision and the hand of both the president and the Senate.
We are at an inflection point in which the foundational principles of our democracy and our national security interests are at stake, and the rule of law and the ability of our institutions to function freely and independently must be upheld.
During our service in the Senate, at times we were allies and at other times opponents, but never enemies. We all took an oath swearing allegiance to the Constitution. Whatever united or divided us, we did not veer from our unwavering and shared commitment to placing our country, democracy and national interest above all else.
At other critical moments in our history, when constitutional crises have threatened our foundations, it has been the Senate that has stood in defense of our democracy. Today is once again such a time.
Regardless of party affiliation, ideological leanings or geography, as former members of this great body, we urge current and future senators to be steadfast and zealous guardians of our democracy by ensuring that partisanship or self-interest not replace national interest.
Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), Richard Bryan (D-Nev.), Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), Max Cleland (D-Ga.), William Cohen (R-Maine), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Al D’Amato (R-N.Y.), John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), David Durenberger (R-Minn.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Wyche Fowler (D-Ga.), Bob Graham (D-Fla.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Gary Hart (D-Colo.), Bennett Johnston (D-La.), Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Paul Kirk (D-Mass.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), Larry Pressler (R-S.D.), David Pryor (D-Ark.), Don Riegle (D-Mich.), Chuck Robb (D-Va.), Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.), Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), John W. Warner (R-Va.), Lowell Weicker (I-Conn.), Tim Wirth (D-Colo.)
He directed his lawyer to violate campaign law because it was over the limit of $2700.
You keep ignoring the fact that the law was violated by the lawyer of the candidate Trump. The law is very clear.
You are kind of back stepping. Trump made a contribution over the limit by law. The DACA claim is the only way you can avoid admitting he violated the law.
It may end up in court. The campaign laws are not always easy to follow.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Justice department is claiming that the action itself was illegal?
Yes
U.S. Justice Department brought criminal charges against Cohen, whereas the FEC brought civil violations against Obama’s campaign.
The law involved is the same law. Obama paid for his violations. Cohen was indicted.
The FEC is not the only authority in regards to campaign finance laws. The DOJ has the authority to prosecute Cohen and possibly the President. He can be indicted according to most Constitutional lawyers.
Your favorite lawyers will differ.
Your Vikings got killed.
Trump took an oath swearing allegiance to the Constitution.
I don't think that he's doing what he swore to do. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not Donald Trump .
I always know when roger is posting bullshit. He tries to hide it in a large volume of rhetoric.
9 of the last 10 posts are from him.
"James Comey, the former FBI director repeatedly stated in testimony to the House Judiciary Committee that he “never” knew the author of the infamous anti-Trump dossier had been retained to do his work by a U.S.-based law firm."
What a dolt.
Four Rico's Sign that POS letter
Thirty six Socialist Never Trumpets
So in the tiny pickled mind of 2nd Generation Alky it is Bi-partisan.
What a stupid limp dick.
Anonymous Myballs said...
I always know when roger is posting bullshit. He tries to hide it in a large volume of rhetoric.
9 of the last 10 posts are from him.
and they're all copy/paste's from some leftists hack.
like an alky-lanche of other people's thought and ideas account for anything.
the boy is a poster child for the invincible ignorance syndrome.
You keep ignoring the fact that the law was violated by the lawyer of the candidate Trump. The law is very clear.
the money paid was not campaign money and the payments were not made in the name of, at the behest of, or to directly or indirectly aid the campaign.
john edwards got away with using almost a million bucks in direct campaign contributions, and the DOJ would NOW have us believe that trump using his own $$$ is guilty of something edwards was given a pass on?
geezus alky, your desperation to depose this president is hovering somewhere around the criminally insane level.
grow up. you lost.
and btw genius, we're all thankful that imbeciles like you do not get to decide whether or not trump is fulfilling his constitutional obligations.
Muller's logic for the crime is that the payments to the two women extornist were not made public which defeated the purpose of the payments to begin with.
If this wasn't Donald Trump, nobody would be trying to make this out to be a crime. We have gone from the rule of law to the rule of political revenge.
We've truly become a banana republic.
"TIME Magazine announced its shortlist of ten potential picks for its 2018 “Person of the Year” on NBC’s Today Monday morning, featuring Christine Blasey Ford "
Hopefully they will pick her. It will the biggest embarrassment in Time's history.
f this wasn't Donald Trump, nobody would be trying to make this out to be a crime
Donald got away with that shit for years....he had money and a lawyer he paid well and got away with that behavior for years which were not campaign funds....Why do you think he's a personna non gratis in his home state???? The difference being, he has a wife now that is tolerating his infidelity, just like hillary did....however, malodorous has no plan B but to stick it out and enjoy his wealth before the next shoe drop.s......LOLOLOLO
As Usual Tucker Carlson Has the Right Take
The gist is this: Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, has told federal investigators that he facilitated payments to two women who said they had affairs with Donald Trump. And then.... well, actually that’s it. That’s the entire story right there. Paying these two women, say federal prosecutors and their flacks at NBC, was a serious crime, a crime worthy of impeachment, if not indictment.
But, you might be wondering, how exactly is that criminal? We’ll explain that to you.
Let’s start by stipulating that everything Michael Cohen has told the feds is absolutely true. Assuming honesty isn’t usually a wise idea with Michael Cohen, but for the sake of argument, let’s do it in this case. Why is what Cohen is alleging a criminal offense?
Remember the facts of the story. These are undisputed: Two women approach Donald Trump and threaten to ruin his career and humiliate his family if he doesn’t give them money. That sounds like a classic case of extortion. Yet, for whatever reason, Trump caves to it, and he directs Michael Cohen to pay the ransom. Now, more than two years later, Trump is a felon for doing this. It doesn’t seem to make sense.
Oh, but you’re not a federal prosecutor on a political mission. If you were a federal prosecutor on a political mission, you’d construe those extortion payments as campaign contributions. You’d do this even though the money in question didn’t come from, or go to, Trump’s presidential campaign.
Then you’d claim that Trump and Cohen violated campaign finance law because they didn’t publicly disclose those payments, despite the fact that disclosing them would nullify the reason for making them in the first place --which was to keep the whole thing secret. That is the argument you’d make, both in federal court and through your proxies on cable television.
It is insultingly stupid. But because everyone in power hates the target of your investigation, nobody would question you. And that’s what’s happening right now.
here's a piece of very excellent news that's probably gone largely unnoticed as the left continues it's palace coup -
The Trump administration is urging states to tear down pillars of the Affordable Care Act, demolishing a basic rule that federal insurance subsidies can be used only by people buying health plans in marketplaces created under the law.
According to advice issued Thursday by federal health officials, states should be free to redefine the use of those subsidies, which began in 2014. They represent the first help the government ever has offered middle-class consumers to afford monthly premiums for private insurance.
States could allow the subsidies to be used for health plans the administration has been promoting outside the ACA marketplaces that are less expensive because they provide skimpier benefits and fewer consumer protections. In an even more dramatic change, states could let residents with employer-based coverage set up accounts in which they mingle the federal subsidies with health-care funds from their job or personal tax-deferred savings funds to use for premiums or other medical expenses.
If some states take up the administration’s offer, it would undermine the ACA’s central changes to the nation’s insurance system, including the establishment of nationwide standards for many kinds of health coverage sold in the United States.
[...]
The concepts go beyond a variety of other steps Trump administration health officials have taken in the past year to weaken the ACA, which the president has opposed vociferously.
Until now, they have focused on bending the ACA’s rules for health plans. The administration has rewritten regulations to make it easier for Americans to buy two types of insurance that are relatively inexpensive because they do not contain all the benefits and consumer protections that the ACA typically requires.
The new steps go further by undercutting the basic ACA structure of the individual insurance marketplaces created for those who cannot get affordable health benefits through a job.
During a conference call with journalists, Verma said that no state would be allowed to retreat from a popular aspect of the ACA that protects people with preexisting medical conditions from higher prices or an inability to buy coverage.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/new-insurance-guidelines-would-undermine-rules-of-the-affordable-care-act/2018/11/29/ff467f46-f357-11e8-aeea-b85fd44449f5_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d68d90b73a31
because they provide skimpier benefits and fewer consumer protections
heh.
you can tell that the amazon post is none too happy about the fact that 90 year old women can now buy a plan that's not stuffed full of shit only useful to a 30 year old.
Donald got away with that shit for years....he had money and a lawyer he paid well and got away with that behavior for years which were not campaign funds..
So tell Denny, what business is his personal behavour is to us? Especially his personal behavior before he's was elected President of the United States?
Seems to me that you want to use the coercive power of the state to overturn the election of and to punish a person who offends you.
That sounds like a classic case of extortion.
it is, which was reinforced by prof. dershowitz in a segment immediately following tucker's monologue.
so we're safe to assume that the DOJ is investigating these two whores for extorting $$$ from trump, right?
oh wait.
it's trump, and we don't like trump because orange man bad.
so the whores are in the clear.
never mind.
Why do you think he's a personna non gratis in his home state????
because he's not. trump's done a lot of good for NY, virtually all of it in the city though.
and gov. cuomo just met with him last week to get the feds to pay for a tunnel from NY to NJ.
Donald got away with that shit for years....he had money and a lawyer he paid well and got away with that behavior for years which were not campaign funds...
exactly. so why should we care? i don't care how many porn stars he sleeps with. it's none of my business. and it's certainly not illegal.
why don't you share your nuggets of wisdom with the alky? he has his heels dug in on the losing side of yet another argument.
Read the sentencing memorandum filed in Cohen’s case Friday by the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York:
Cohen’s commission of two campaign finance crimes on the eve of the 2016 election for President of the United States struck a blow to one of the core goals of the federal campaign finance laws: transparency. While many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the election knocked on doors, toiled at phone banks, or found any number of other legal ways to make their voices heard, Cohen sought to influence the election from the shadows. He did so by orchestrating secret and illegal payments to silence two women who otherwise would have made public their alleged extramarital affairs with Individual-1. In the process, Cohen deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election.
According to the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York it was illegal and it was done under the command of Individual-1.
So tell Denny, what business is his personal behavior is to us?
Nothing....it does show he's been a douche bag since the beginning of time ergo his home state hating him!!!!!....However...his criminal behavior and dissing everyone but himself is more than worrisome,,,,,He's perfect, like you and your cult.....too bad laws are now impeding his complete ruining of the country.....
According to the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York it was illegal and it was done under the command of Individual-1.
I heard Grassley the old white man saying those words are unimportant and he didn't care because they came from a liar....Me thinks Chuckie will be eating those words sooner than later...Sad....chuckie did not realize that the SDNY were the source!!!!
According to the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York it was illegal and it was done under the command of Individual-1.
that's nice.
i have two questions for you -
1) is the SDNY smart enough to know that they cannot indict a sitting president?
2) are you considering trump innocent until proven guilty?
number one is an open question.
number two is rhetorical since your TDS blinds you to the logic of such fundamental concepts as due process.
oh, shit...
and i almost forgot - where exactly are we on the collusion stuff. i'm seeing everyone completely consumed by campaign finance nonsense, and am wondering if there is anyone left who is focused on the original mission.
I heard Grassley the old white man saying those words are unimportant and he didn't care because they came from a liar...
well d0pie, grassley's not wrong.
there is a glaring contradiction here. part of what cohen was busted for was LYING, yet we're supposed to believe the part where he said trump directed him to break campaign finance law.
so...
...believe the liar when it's convenient.
huh. mueller's case distilled down to its essence.
ironically, i can see exactly why the alky has gone 'all-in' on this.
LOL.
Another great front page from Trumps home town newspaper.....kinda sums up why no one wants to work for the asshole except other assholes like menstral and rat hole....LOLOLOL
http://enewspaper.nydailynews.com/html5/desktop/production/default.aspx?pubid=a948621d-d740-4787-8c86-2cdff7a65076
hey alky,
you left out the best parts -
“Cohen first reached out to meet with the (special counsel) at a time when he knew he was under imminent threat of indictment in this District. As such, any suggestion by Cohen that his meetings with law enforcement reflect a selfless and unprompted about-face are overstated.”
__
“Cohen did provide information to law enforcement, including information that assisted the Special Counsel’s Office (SCO) in ongoing matters. ... But Cohen’s description of those efforts is overstated in some respects and incomplete in others.”
__
“At the time that Cohen met twice with this Office, through his attorneys, he had expressed that he was considering — but not committing to — full cooperation. Cohen subsequently determined not to fully cooperate.”
__
“On balance, like most others who stand before this Court for sentence, Cohen is neither all good nor all bad. His personal interactions in private life should not be this Court’s principal consideration. Rather, it is Cohen’s serious crimes that should be the Court’s lodestar.”
https://www.apnews.com/7dd193fad8c841aaac2dbc0b911e651c
and there's the link you plagiarized.
But Cohen’s description of those efforts is overstated in some respects and incomplete in others.”
But they did show individual 1 is in deep shit and cohens's lack of candor is going to get him jail time, maybe.....there still is one more chance for redemption before the final sentence is announced....Keep hoping it's not as bad as you think it is....going to be a big shoe drop on you and donnie's head...BWAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! You do recall cohen had trump on tape directing the payment don't you?????LOLOLOLOL
2nd Generation Alky, Jane and effeminate Denise have a very bad case of wealth envy. For good reason.
ate Denise have a very bad case of wealth envy.
What ever you say, goat fucker.....your own sense of self worth is most amusing.....LOLOLOLOL Especially knowing you live in a double wide chopping wood to stay warm! BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA~~~~
good take -
"This week’s Key to Everything is Michael Cohen, the guy who lied out of self-interest for Trump until last week when we learned he is also willing to lie, er, testify against Trump out of self-interest. If you take his most recent statements at face value, the sum is the failed negotiations to build a Trump hotel in Moscow, which went on a few months longer than was originally stated, and that we all knew about already.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York submitted a sentencing memo Friday for Cohen, recommending 42 months in jail. In a separate filing, Mueller made no term recommendation but praised Cohen for his “significant efforts to assist the special counsel’s office.” The memos reveal no new information.
Call it sleazy if you want, but looking into a real estate deal is neither a high crime nor a misdemeanor, even if it’s in Russia. Conspiracy law requires an agreement to commit a crime, not just the media declaiming that “Cohen was communicating directly with the Kremlin!” Talking about meeting Russian persons is not a crime, nor is meeting with them.
The takeaway that this was all about influence shopping by the Russkies falls flat. If Putin sought to ensnare Trump, why didn’t he find a way for the deal to actually go through? Mueller has to be able to prove actual crimes by the president, not just twist our underclothes into weekly conspiratorial knots. For fun, look here at the creative writing needed to even suggest anything illegal. That doesn’t sound like Trump’s on thin ice with hot shoes."
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/muellers-investigation-is-missing-one-thing-a-crime/
yeah, why DIDN'T putin fast track trump's moscow tower complete with the promise of a free $50M penthouse?
But they did show individual 1 is in deep shit and cohens's lack of candor is going to get him jail time, maybe.....there still is one more chance for redemption before the final sentence is announced....Keep hoping it's not as bad as you think it is....
well, there's no 'deep shit.'
we need charges and perhaps an actual trial before a final sentence can be announced.
and it's not about how bad it is, but how it's about nothing at all.
way to go 0 for 3 d0pie.
The writing is clearly on the wall.
President Trump will be impeached.
The odds of him being removed from office is very low but the odds of him being impeached by the House of Representatives approaches 100%. Despite the noises you are hearing from the Democrat party and its Congressional caucus, the House Democrats can’t not impeach Trump for several reasons.
First, they have to even the score for Clinton. Clinton’s impeachment is still believed to be a wildly radical and improper step taken by a highly partisan special prosecutor and getting their own back will be just too great a temptation to resist.
Second, they want to put an asterisk by Trump’s election. The whole Russia-collusion narrative is being exposed for the utter bullsh** rational people always knew it to be. In its place they are going to use President Trump’s payments to two mistresses as a way of locking in their narrative that Trump won by cheating. As Nadler says, “they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office.”
Third, their base demands it and will punish them if they don’t.
Fourth, impeachment will take place as the 2020 primary season gets underway and they undoubtedly feel the best campaign advertisement for the Democrats will be lengthy House Judiciary Committee hearings, covered gavel-to-gavel by CNN and MSNBC as well as extensive play in the New York Times and Washington Post, where Trump can be attacked and where there will be virtually no significant coverage of his defenders. If the Senate drags its feet, that will be a further point of attack. It the Senate votes to acquit, yet another vulnerable flank is revealed.
Given the near inevitability of impeachment, how does this play out? Will the impeachment be seen as the political opportunism and revenge that it is or will it be seen as justified? Will it draw out more anti-Trump votes to reward the act? Or will the Democrat base be smoking a cigarette and wiping down with a damp washcloth in the afterglow and just forget to show up?
https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2018/12/10/president-trump-going-impeached-question-much-damage/
Read the sentencing memorandum filed in Cohen’s case Friday by the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York
As Tucker Carlson said, "insultingly stupid". Just because the US attorney said it was a campaign contribution doesn't make it so. He has to prove it and right now he really doesn't have a leg to stand on.
He directed his lawyer to violate campaign law because it was over the limit of $2700.
Have you seen evidence of this?
Or are you just repeating what you have been told?
I have seen the contract written between Trump and Cohen. It was made public. It made no mention of it being a campaign contribution AND it specifically drew out how Cohen was not only being given the money to pay for it, but also being given the legal fees to Cohen for his service.
It was treated entirely as a legal expense because a client having an attorney negotiate a NDA is a legal expense.
Again Rog - WE HAVE SEEN A CONTRACT
What written communication have you seen where Trump directs his client to break the law?
Roger?
Roger?
Bueller?
prominent liberal and hillary clinton supporter alan dershowitz makes an excellent point that not a single liberal in america is honest enough to admit -
“I want everyone out there to imagine the following scenario,” Dershowitz began as he asked viewers to think of how the reaction would change if it was President Bill Clinton:
Let's assume when Bill Clinton was running for president, Paula Jones came up to him and said, “unless you pay me $130,000 I will reveal our affair.” And let's assume that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton together did exactly what it is alleged that Donald Trump and Michael Cohen did together.
“I guarantee you that The New York Times, NBC, MSNBC would be railing against any prosecutor who dared to suggest that this was a violation of the campaign finance law. Everybody would be on the other side of this issue,” he declared.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2018/12/10/dershowitz-blasts-liberal-media-double-standard-trump-hush
Trump has actually said that he directed Cohen to pay for the silence.
The Southern District has stated in the statement released by the Southern District that I provided for your entertainment.
Cohen’s commission of two campaign finance crimes on the eve of the 2016 election for President of the United States struck a blow to one of the core goals of the federal campaign finance laws: transparency. While many Americans who desired a particular outcome to the election knocked on doors, toiled at phone banks, or found any number of other legal ways to make their voices heard, Cohen sought to influence the election from the shadows. He did so by orchestrating secret and illegal payments to silence two women who otherwise would have made public their alleged extramarital affairs with Individual-1. In the process, Cohen deceived the voting public by hiding alleged facts that he believed would have had a substantial effect on the election.
You have already downloaded the PDF file. Read it for yourself .
On Friday, Mueller revealed yet another Trump-Russia contact, bringing to at least 14 the number of Trump associates known to have interacted with Russians during the campaign. Trump and his gang never once notified the FBI.
Max Boot
Tucker is about as intelligent as my shoes.
Max Boot
alky,
since you haven't been paying attention, max boot has become a parody. a clown. he's widely mocked for his shift to becoming CNN's "house conservative."
trust me, you can do better than max boot without even trying. he's basically trending as the leading assclown on the internet these days.
and btw, posting and re-posting and re-posting the same fucking SDNY statement doesn't prove a fucking thing.
it remains an allegation, and the burden of proof is on the SDNY while the presumption of innocence remains with trump.
all you've admitted is that you've lost the argument.
again.
Trump has actually said that he directed Cohen to pay for the silence.
Which is entirely legal.
You do understand that Nondisclosure agreements happen all the time.
You understand that our own congress has used 17 million dollars of tax-payer money in legal settlements over sexual harassment complaints that included specific non-disclosure agreements with those settlements.
Are you truly under the impression that non-disclosure agreements are illegal?
Please tell me that you are not that naive?
Blogger Roger Amick said...
Tucker is about as intelligent as my shoes.
how would you know? you won't allow him into your bubble. you wouldn't watch his show if someone paid you.
The argument between those who believe that the candidate Trump directed his lawyer to pay for the silence of Stormy Daniels and those like in the Southern District believe that the law was violated.
You choose to agree with "dershowitz".
Lawrence Tribe of Harvard University disagreed with "dershowitz". rrb English
the max boot comedy hour:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/opinions/2018/12/10/our-long-national-nightmare-is-just-beginning/?nid=menu_nav_accessibilityforscreenreader&outputType=accessibility&utm_term=.8773ef8c441c
stop stealing alky.
So last month Obama was out giving speeches trying to influence the elections. Meddling in elections is illegal. He should go to jail.
See how easy this is?
Trump at 49% latest poll.
Poll also says 68% want dems to work with trump.
Rasmussen.
Lawrence Tribe of Harvard University disagreed with "dershowitz". rrb English
my lack of capitalization somehow offends you, alky?
try to imagine how little i care.
and please, please try posting comments that are your own.
of course, capitalization is optional.
and alky, laurence tribe is only marginally less obsessed with deposing trump than you are. he's so fucking unglued his colleagues would probably be wise to seek a restraining order against him.
here's where tribe chooses to peddle his nonsense. this is like crazy larry squared:
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/laurence-tribe-trump-can-be-indicted-for-federal-crimes-1394359875863
cuckoo for cocoa puffs.
Laurence Tribe
Verified account
@tribelaw
16h16 hours ago
More Laurence Tribe Retweeted Cheri Jacobus
In the event McConnell and his GOP troops tell Trump he’ll be convicted by the Senate unless he resigns soon, we need to deter a pardon by Pence of an ex-POTUS Trump. Indicting Trump the moment the evidence warrants would make it clear to Pence that he’d better not pull a Ford.
Tribe is infected with TDS as bad as Roger is.
Comey Comedy. He said he did not know Hillary Paid for the Fake Dossier.
Wow, nutz
wood to stay warm! BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA~.
Again Denise is in the dark and clueless.
I don't chop wood. I barter for it. Old goat Denise.
Old stupid goat Denise.
You're old outdated paradigm is showing again.
We use 25 ton wood splitter. Modern Chain saws.
Post a Comment