The common thread in Trump's defenders

[ralliann]

You should take some time to read up on the relevant laws. You and several others keep getting a bunch of basic stuff wrong that would be remedied with a bit of homework.

There are strict limits on how much a person can donate to a campaign. Cohen greatly exceeded those limits. Candidates are exempt from those limits with respect to their own campaigns, but are not exempt from reporting donations or loans to their campaigns. Trump did not report these contributions.

It's also true that corporations are not allowed to make any donations directly to political campaigns, and at least some of the reimbursements were made to Cohen through the Trump Organization. I'm not clear on whether or not this played into any of the charges, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.

No need to. I have heard Scholars opinions.......which these other cases do not match, but the media likes to push this stuff before the facts of what is what comes out.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I know what COHEN bought. He bought stormy Daniels silence as that is what non disclosure agreements DO.

Sure, but Cohen doesn't benefit from Stormy not talking.

Who does?

You've just been talking about Cohen's ulterior motive in currying favor with Trump.

Why would Trump like Cohen to do that? Because it benefits Trump.

And how does it benefit Trump in the final weeks before the election?

Evidence at trial shows that the election was the primary reason for this transaction. An NDA could have been struck any time in the preceding 10 years. Why was it so vital to get it done on October 27th, 2016?

 

[ralliann]

Sure, but Cohen doesn't benefit from Stormy not talking.

Who does?

Cohen If he landed a legal position in the white house....

You've just been talking about Cohen's ulterior motive in currying favor with Trump.

Why would Trump like Cohen to do that? Because it benefits Trump.

Well why on earth would anyone pay for a non disclosure agreement? Because it BENEFITS THEM.
It is not illegal, and it is always for benefit to those who pay them...as well as those they get paid from them...

And how does it benefit Trump in the final weeks before the election?

It is not the only Non disclosure agreement he has done. It benefits his family, his brand, reputation. And therefore also his election. Nothing novel to that...

Evidence at trial shows that the election was the primary reason for this transaction. An NDA could have been struck any time in the preceding 10 years. Why was it so vital to get it done on October 27th, 2016?

Evidence at trial was his wife and children.
And.....So what if his sole purpose was to get elected? It was this first time a non-disclosure agreement was reclassed a Campaign contribution.
As for timing, well that seemed to be the prime time Stormy decided to demand money.......
And Bragg decided to try a novel idea, with a biased judicial system.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As for timing, well that seemed to be the prime time Stormy decided to demand money.......

Nobody ever accused her of being dumb.

 

[iluvatar5150]

No need to. I have heard Scholars opinions.......

Then why do you keep getting so much basic stuff wrong?

 

[ralliann]

Then why do you keep getting so much basic stuff wrong?

Basic stuff will be proved out as right or wrong by the appeals process. You just assume the basics this court has decided are right....

 

[iluvatar5150]

Basic stuff will be proved out as right or wrong by the appeals process. You just assume the basics this court has decided are right....

Facts about the charges aren’t a matter of opinion.

 

[ralliann]

Facts about the charges aren’t a matter of opinion.

Evidently pleading guilty, can avoid prosecution. Charges can still remain. But those things do not make you right concerning Trump himself....
Benefit of that, making it a crime, without prosecution to prove guilt...
Which Trump was not charged as a result of his guilty plea, because it meant nothing of what Trump did at that time.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

In the end I hope he does not pardon himself. This needs to be overturned, and his rights being violted needs to be remedied. If this stands, this stuff is going ruin this country.

In the end I hope he does not pardon himself. This needs to be overturned, and his rights being violted needs to be remedied. If this stands, this stuff is going ruin this country

I almost forgot to mention the part where Trump is impeached a third time (assuming the Republicans lose the house).

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I know what COHEN bought. He bought stormy Daniels silence as that is what non disclosure agreements DO. And they are Legal, not illegal. Even if Donald Trump knew Cohen did it on his own (ridiculous because Trump could have easily done it himself, unlike Edwards) it is not illegal.
Edwards accepted campaign Money, he used for a hidden purpose. Trumps money they turned into campaign money, simply because he was running for office.

I wonder if it is illegal to launder campaign money to a firm to higher a foreign agent to make up a story about your political opponent's collusion with the Russians with the intent of election interference only to leak it to the FBI to start an investigation that will eventually lead to your incumbent opponent's impeachment? Sorry for the run-on sentence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is where COSTELLO comes in....I think also Hope Hicks. Costello testified Cohen did it all on his own. He wanted to be among the staff of Trumps presidency. Hope Hicks, testified that Cohen as a fixer, was mostly fixing things that he himself messed up. He would often go rogue.
And if you will notice, the DONORS to Edwards attempted to say their money was a gift.....Because Edwards did not have enough money to outright pay personally.... Cohen it was not a gift, Trump was to pay him back...

and Hicks clearly testified that Cohen was not the sort of generous guy that was just going to *give* Donald Trump a $130,000 gift to cover-up his moral turpitude. Cohen was *exactly* the kind of guy who was loyal enough commit a crime for Trump, but *exactly* the kind of guy that would only do so with the expectation that he'd get the $130,000 back. "Cohen did it on his own" is not compatible with the actual character of Michael Cohen.

 

[BPPLEE]

and Hicks clearly testified that Cohen was not the sort of generous guy that was just going to *give* Donald Trump a $130,000 gift to cover-up his moral turpitude. Cohen was *exactly* the kind of guy who was loyal enough commit a crime for Trump, but *exactly* the kind of guy that would only do so with the expectation that he'd get the $130,000 back. "Cohen did it on his own" is not compatible with the actual character of Michael Cohen.

Character or lack of it?

 

[JSRG]

In the end I hope he does not pardon himself. This needs to be overturned, and his rights being violted needs to be remedied. If this stands, this stuff is going ruin this country

Trump cannot pardon himself of the New York charge. Even if the president does have the power to pardon himself--already a debated point--this power only applies to federal charges, not state charges.

 

[ralliann]

The non disclosure agreement was to prevent the public from finding out and hurting him in the election. There was no other reason to pay hush money for an incident over 10 years old right before the election, if not for the election. Evidence and witnesses were presented that Trump knew and that his family was not his primary concern. In fact, there was witness testimony that they were going to string Stormy along until just after the election but she was speaking with a news oulet besides AMI. They had handwritten notes of the repayment scheme to avoid taxes for Cohen and the signed checks paying him.

From Jonathan Turley concerning a witness not allowed. Brad Smith was ready to testify.....

Without knowing election law, none of us knows what we are talking about. It was not allowed to the jury either....... Nor did Merchan speak to it either
The hill
Begin quote: "Merchan also barred the use of a legal expert, former FEC Chair Brad Smith, who was prepared to testify that such payments cannot be viewed as federal election violations and would not affect the election even if they were considered contributions, since they would not even have had to be reported until after the election."

"Merchan is likely to be upheld in denying the expert, since the court retains the authority to state what the law is to the jury. The problem is that Merchan failed to do so. Worse still, he allowed the jury to hear the opposite in the repeated false claim that these payments were campaign contributions." end quote

 

[ralliann]

Trump cannot pardon himself of the New York charge. Even if the president does have the power to pardon himself--already a debated point--this power only applies to federal charges, not state charges.

It isn't state it is federal election law.....That also is going to appeal...
Same article in The Hill from Turley
Begin quote

"The Charges

A leading threshold issue will be the decision to allow Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to effectively try Trump for violations of federal law. The Justice Department declined any criminal charges against Trump under federal election law over the alleged “hush money” payments. The Federal Election Commission likewise found no basis for a civil fine. With no federal prosecution, Bragg decided to use an unprecedented criminal theory not only to zap a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but to allow him to try violations of not only federal election law but also federal taxation violations. In other words, the Justice Department would not prosecute federal violations, so Bragg effectively did it in state court." End quote

 

[ralliann]

I wonder if it is illegal to launder campaign money to a firm to higher a foreign agent to make up a story about your political opponent's collusion with the Russians with the intent of election interference only to leak it to the FBI to start an investigation that will eventually lead to your incumbent opponent's impeachment? Sorry for the run-on sentence.

Well according to Brad Smith, former chair of the FEC it could not have been to win an election. None of it would have been reported until after the election. Win or lose it would have been a moot point to the election.

 

[SimplyMe]

Trump paid him back. How is that a campaign violation. It was loan. The payback is where the money was found.....Trump paid Stormy Daniels, not Cohen in the end.

As I put in another post, if I rob a bank to prevent a friend from losing his house and, a couple of months later, my friend pays back the bank the money I stole -- it does not change that I robbed the bank. It is similar here. If nothing else, as you point out, it was a loan and the loan had a value high enough that it violated campaign finance laws. It doesn't matter that it was paid back after the election was over -- if Trump didn't have the cash on hand he should have gotten the loan himself, as he can loan money to his own campaign.

Trump paid stormy Daniels, not Cohen. Cohen got the money back..

Again, after the election was over. To not be a crime, Trump needed to have paid off the NDA with his own money, not have Cohen get a loan and then Trump pay him a few months later.

It was Cohen's elaborate scheme. TRUMP could easily pay 130,000 . It was also that he was stealing from Trump, that he did stuff like that....

Great, then maybe Trump shouldn't have paid Cohen back, particularly writing on the checks that it was a retainer payment. After all, Cohen ended up being charged with campaign finance violations for paying Stormy Daniels and served time in Federal Prison. Though I'm also confused, because I keep see it being claimed that it was "Cohen's elaborate scheme" but also seeing that Trump promised to pay Cohen back -- seems like those two ideas contradict each other. Either way, since Cohen was convicted of campaign finance violations, I'm not sure how it can be claimed that the NDA had nothing to do with the campaign and was completely legal; particularly since Cohen was convicted after Trump had paid him back.

 

[Pommer]

pRoper. Speeling punctuation and grammar ? like capitalzaition is the responsablity of the poaster.

(Autocorrect is the worst thing known to typing. I murderize it every time I get something updated and it is turned on.

:wq

I’ve used “autocorrrect” so often my iPad defaults to it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Well according to Brad Smith, former chair of the FEC it could not have been to win an election. None of it would have been reported until after the election. Win or lose it would have been a moot point to the election.

The financial reports may not have been made until after the election (assuming that that's accurate), but Stormy could have talked to the press prior to the election.

 

[Pommer]

Cohen If he landed a legal position in the white house....

Riiiight, Cohen was going to subject himself to a security clearance investigation.