The common thread in Trump's defenders

[ralliann]

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.

There is no similarity......

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.

To pay for a non- disclosure agreement is not illegal. Brad Smith was ready to testify to that. he was disallowed. The feds did not find anything concerning Trump....

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.



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.

The money was not paid to a campaign.

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.

Cohen pleaded guilty for perks..Ami, was also offered a non-prosecution deal...This will work its way through the appeals process. Trump will continue to run....

 

[ralliann]

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.

Stormy, was paid not to talk, so no she did not, rather she hit Trump up for money instead. Brad smith was not allowed to testify, and the judge never instructed on it either......Yes, I assume it is accurate, Brad Smith, former FEC chair, should know what he is talking about.

 

[iluvatar5150]

To pay for a non- disclosure agreement is not illegal.

The money was not paid to a campaign.

How are we 22 pages into this thread, who knows how many pages into all of the other threads and you're still arguing this as if you don't understand the particulars of this case that have been explained to you multiple times, and how neither of those sentences are relevant?

Nobody has said that an NDA is illegal. Trump wasn't charged for making an "illegal NDA." Cohen didn't plead guilty to paying for an "illegal NDA." Why on earth are you guys going on about NDA's not being illegal?

And the money didn't have to be paid to a campaign.

HOW THIS WORKS: When an expenditure is made in service of a campaign (which the payment for this NDA was), it is considered a contribution to the campaign whether or not the money gets funneled through the campaign. (This is called an "in-kind contribution", which is a term you might recognize if you donate property or services to a charity and then itemize those deductions.) At least some of the hush money to John Edwards' mistress was routed outside of the campaign. In the Clarence Norman case to which I linked, the expenses were also routed outside the campaign.

Where the NDA ran into trouble was that, once it became a campaign contribution, it became subject to certain FEC rules regarding who can make the contribution, how big it can be, and how it has to be reported. There were ways to pay off Stormy that would've complied with FEC rules, but they would've been less secretive, which would've defeated the purpose.

Brad smith was not allowed to testify

That isn't correct. The defense declined to call him.

Judge in Trump’s hush money trial did not bar campaign finance expert from testifying for defense

As the trial continued Tuesday, social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.

apnews.com

 

[ralliann]

How are we 22 pages into this thread, who knows how many pages into all of the other threads and you're still arguing this as if you don't understand the particulars of this case that have been explained to you multiple times, and how neither of those sentences are relevant?

Nobody has said that an NDA is illegal. Trump wasn't charged for making an "illegal NDA."

But yet I gave you why the feds did not go after Trump.

Cohen didn't plead guilty to paying for an "illegal NDA." Why on earth are you guys going on about NDA's not being illegal?

Yes, they did. They made the NDA into a campaign Expense....

And the money didn't have to be paid to a campaign.

HOW THIS WORKS: When an expenditure is made in service of a campaign (which the payment for this NDA was), it is considered a contribution to the campaign whether or not the money gets funneled through the campaign. (This is called an "in-kind contribution", which is a term you might recognize if you donate property or services to a charity and then itemize those deductions.) At least some of the hush money to John Edwards' mistress was routed outside of the campaign. In the Clarence Norman case to which I linked, the expenses were also routed outside the campaign.

Where the NDA ran into trouble was that, once it became a campaign contribution, it became subject to certain FEC rules regarding who can make the contribution, how big it can be, and how it has to be reported. There were ways to pay off Stormy that would've complied with FEC rules, but they would've been less secretive, which would've defeated the purpose.




That isn't correct. The defense declined to call him.

Judge in Trump’s hush money trial did not bar campaign finance expert from testifying for defense

As the trial continued Tuesday, social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.

apnews.com

As far as facts are concerned, The court in this case did not allow all the facts. This is why I have quoted scholars and witnesses which were not allowed. Nor did the judge instruct concerning thise things.....So your facts are disputed, and this will go to appeal.
It is a fact Brad Smith was ready to testify, nothing would have been known about this until after the election. And the feds found nothing to go after Trump.....Those are some facts.
From your article
"AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Merchan did not bar Smith from testifying. Trump’s legal team chose to not call on him after the judge on Monday declined to broaden the scope of questioning the defense could pursue. The ruling echoed his pretrial ruling on the matter."

After the judge declined what the defense could persue.......There was no point to call him.....
Such articles are so deceitful.
Turley was correct.....

 

[BPPLEE]

How are we 22 pages into this thread, who knows how many pages into all of the other threads and you're still arguing this as if you don't understand the particulars of this case that have been explained to you multiple times, and how neither of those sentences are relevant?

Nobody has said that an NDA is illegal. Trump wasn't charged for making an "illegal NDA." Cohen didn't plead guilty to paying for an "illegal NDA." Why on earth are you guys going on about NDA's not being illegal?

And the money didn't have to be paid to a campaign.

HOW THIS WORKS: When an expenditure is made in service of a campaign (which the payment for this NDA was), it is considered a contribution to the campaign whether or not the money gets funneled through the campaign. (This is called an "in-kind contribution", which is a term you might recognize if you donate property or services to a charity and then itemize those deductions.) At least some of the hush money to John Edwards' mistress was routed outside of the campaign. In the Clarence Norman case to which I linked, the expenses were also routed outside the campaign.

Where the NDA ran into trouble was that, once it became a campaign contribution, it became subject to certain FEC rules regarding who can make the contribution, how big it can be, and how it has to be reported. There were ways to pay off Stormy that would've complied with FEC rules, but they would've been less secretive, which would've defeated the purpose.




That isn't correct. The defense declined to call him.

Judge in Trump’s hush money trial did not bar campaign finance expert from testifying for defense

As the trial continued Tuesday, social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.

apnews.com

The judge would not allow the defense to question Smith on what they wanted to ask him.
They wanted to show that there was no campaign finance violation, but the judge would not allow it.

 

[ralliann]

The judge would not allow the defense to question Smith on what they wanted to ask him.
They wanted to show that there was no campaign finance violation, but the judge would not allow it.

Exactly, these kinds of articles are simply smoke and mirrors.....
Turley had it right....

 

[iluvatar5150]

Yes, they did. They made the NDA into a campaign Expense....

No, they didn't say the NDA was "illegal." Treating it as a campaign contribution does not make it illegal. Contributions are made to campaigns all the time. What treating it as a campaign contribution did was subject it to certain restrictions - restrictions that Trump et al violated. Again, there were ways they could have executed this NDA that would've complied with FEC rules, but they didn't do that - I assume because they would've been less secretive.

As far as facts are concerned, The court in this case did not allow all the facts. This is why I have quoted scholars and witnesses which were not allowed. Nor did the judge instruct concerning thise things.....So your facts are disputed, and this will go to appeal.
It is a fact Brad Smith was ready to testify, nothing would have been known about this until after the election. And the feds found nothing to go after Trump.....Those are some facts.
From your article
"AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Merchan did not bar Smith from testifying. Trump’s legal team chose to not call on him after the judge on Monday declined to broaden the scope of questioning the defense could pursue. The ruling echoed his pretrial ruling on the matter."

After the judge declined what the defense could persue.......There was no point to call him.....
Such articles are so deceitful.
Turley was correct.....

The judge would not allow the defense to question Smith on what they wanted to ask him.
They wanted to show that there was no campaign finance violation, but the judge would not allow it.

With regards to Smith's testimony, it is not true that "the court in this case did not allow all the facts." The judge didn't allow certain parts of Smith's testimony because he was an expert witness and expert witnesses aren't allowed to offer opinions on details of the case such as matters of law or intent of the involved parties. The judge explicitly permitted him to talk about facts. You can read his decision on the matter here. In fact, at the top of page 3, it describes two other, unrelated cases in which Smith's opinions on similar matters were prohibited for similar reasons.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

Finger "typing" in one thing, real keyboards are another. I use it on my phone, but not on computers.

 

[ralliann]

No, they didn't say the NDA was "illegal." Treating it as a campaign contribution does not make it illegal. Contributions are made to campaigns all the time.

But NDA'S are not made illegal contributions all the time...

What treating it as a campaign contribution did was subject it to certain restrictions -

Treating an NDA you mean?

restrictions that Trump et al violated. Again, there were ways they could have executed this NDA that would've complied with FEC rules, but they didn't do that - I assume because they would've been less secretive.

Well Brad Smith and the FEDs did not see it that way.

With regards to Smith's testimony, it is not true that "the court in this case did not allow all the facts." The judge didn't allow certain parts of Smith's testimony because he was an expert witness and expert witnesses aren't allowed to offer opinions on details of the case such as matters of law or intent of the involved parties. The judge explicitly permitted him to talk about facts. You can read his decision on the matter here. In fact, at the top of page 3, it describes two other, unrelated cases in which Smith's opinions on similar matters were prohibited for similar reasons.

The facts were the FEDS had already made their conclusion on all of it......concerning these federal crimes, or lack thereof..
Turley knew what he was talking about. Brad Smith knew what he was talking about, And so did Costello.
As Turley said...concerning the authority of the court to state law...
"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."

 

[essentialsaltes]

As Turley said...concerning the authority of the court to state law...
"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."

That's a Turley-opinion. Not a Turley-fact.

 

[SimplyMe]

But NDA'S are not made illegal contributions all the time...

Yes, but most NDAs don't include "payouts." Rather, NDAs are signed to allow reporters to do a story inside the campaign but prevent them from revealing anything else about the campaign, or campaign workers before they can work/volunteer with the campaign. It only becomes an illegal contribution when there is money paid over the legal contribution limits, and the payment is not made by the candidate or the campaign.

Treating an NDA you mean?

Well Brad Smith and the FEDs did not see it that way.

The facts were the FEDS had already made their conclusion on all of it......concerning these federal crimes, or lack thereof..

Which is why Cohen had been indicted for paying for the NDA and went to prison for doing it. Trying to argue that it wasn't illegal for Cohen to make that payment, and that it wasn't illegal, is directly contradicted by actual indictments and a guilty verdict. If it really wasn't a crime, it seems that the feds wouldn't have been able to indict Cohen, they never even would have tried to indict him on this charge; not to mention that Cohen's lawyers would have easily beat that charge in federal court. So, it is very odd that Cohen was convicted of it when I keep hearing it wasn't a crime.

 

[iluvatar5150]

But NDA'S are not made illegal contributions all the time...

Right - because they're either not made in service of a political campaign, and when they are done in service of a campaign, they follow the relevant FEC rules.

Treating an NDA you mean?

Yes, when a payout for an NDA serves as a campaign contribution, it is subject to certain FEC rules.

The facts were the FEDS had already made their conclusion on all of it.....

Not Prosecuted != Innocent

Turley knew what he was talking about. Brad Smith knew what he was talking about, And so did Costello.

So the lawyers paid to shill for the defense know what they're talking about, but the lawyers paid to prosecute criminals don't?

 

[ralliann]

That's a Turley-opinion. Not a Turley-fact.

Good either way. He is a legal scholar. I trust his opinions, and facts either way. He was not the only one. Now Bill Barr not being surprised at the jury's verdict.

 

[ralliann]

Yes, but most NDAs don't include "payouts."

What? NDA payment for silence. What you are talking about I don't understand. It was not the only NDA Trump had.

Rather, NDAs are signed to allow reporters to do a story inside the campaign but prevent them from revealing anything else about the campaign, or campaign workers before they can work/volunteer with the campaign. It only becomes an illegal contribution when there is money paid over the legal contribution limits, and the payment is not made by the candidate or the campaign.

The payment would not even been reported until after the campaign was over. No need for all this connectedness to win an election.

Which is why Cohen had been indicted for paying for the NDA and went to prison for doing it. Trying to argue that it wasn't illegal for Cohen to make that payment, and that it wasn't illegal, is directly contradicted by actual indictments and a guilty verdict.

Cohen pleaded guilty......

If it really wasn't a crime, it seems that the feds wouldn't have been able to indict Cohen, they never even would have tried to indict him on this charge; not to mention that Cohen's lawyers would have easily beat that charge in federal court. So, it is very odd that Cohen was convicted of it when I keep hearing it wasn't a crime.

Yet, His Crime and plea was not Trumps crime. Nor did they think anything amiss on the federal level.
Turley got it right in their legal decision........
"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."

 

[ralliann]

Right - because they're either not made in service of a political campaign, and when they are done in service of a campaign, they follow the relevant FEC rules.



Yes, when a payout for an NDA serves as a campaign contribution, it is subject to certain FEC rules.



Not Prosecuted != Innocent


So the lawyers paid to shill for the defense know what they're talking about, but the lawyers paid to prosecute criminals don't?

The appeals process will play out. And I believe the scholars predictions concerning all the reversible errors will overturn this thing......

 

[essentialsaltes]

What? NDA payment for silence. What you are talking about I don't understand.

Most NDAs are just business agreements without any money changing hands.

I'm sure all the contestants on the Apprentice signed an NDA saying that they would not disclose who won before the final episode aired. And I doubt any money was attached to that.

If you work as an extra, you sign an NDA.
Some early film previews, the audience signs an NDA.

 

[SimplyMe]

What? NDA payment for silence. What you are talking about I don't understand. It was not the only NDA Trump had.

You aren't aware the Trump requires (or at least required, until the courts told him he could not force federal workers to sign NDAs) for anyone that works for him? Most of those people are not paid for signing the NDA.

The payment would not even been reported until after the campaign was over. No need for all this connectedness to win an election.

So there are no reporting requirements for the last month of the election? People can freely donate millions to political campaigns, amounts well above campaign donation limits, if it won't be reported until after the election is over? This is a non-sensical argument.

And you keep ignoring the story they were attempting to stop by getting Ms. Daniels to sign the NDA would have come out before the election; it doesn't matter that the payment wouldn't have shown up until after the election was over.

Cohen pleaded guilty......

And his lawyers (Cohen did have quality lawyers representing him) would have let him plead guilty for something that they could prove wasn't a crime? That doesn't make any sense, nor does it support your claim.

Yet, His Crime and plea was not Trumps crime. Nor did they think anything amiss on the federal level.
Turley got it right in their legal decision........
"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."

Odd, then, that I hear so much about the guilt of Hillary Clinton, the Justice Department (even Trump's own Justice Department, as Barr has stated) declined to indict Hillary Clinton. I guess all the Republicans who claim she is guilty must be wrong, since she has never been prosecuted. I can see why the court refused to allow an argument made on such poor logic -- failure to prosecute or fine does not mean innocence.

 

[ralliann]

You aren't aware the Trump requires (or at least required, until the courts told him he could not force federal workers to sign NDAs) for anyone that works for him? Most of those people are not paid for signing the NDA.

Tell it to the federal investigators.....

So there are no reporting requirements for the last month of the election? People can freely donate millions to political campaigns, amounts well above campaign donation limits, if it won't be reported until after the election is over? This is a non-sensical argument.

Tell that to the federal investigators

And you keep ignoring the story they were attempting to stop by getting Ms. Daniels to sign the NDA would have come out before the election; it doesn't matter that the payment wouldn't have shown up until after the election was over.



And his lawyers (Cohen did have quality lawyers representing him) would have let him plead guilty for something that they could prove wasn't a crime? That doesn't make any sense, nor does it support your claim.

Tell that to the federal investigators. You all seem to know better than them. I don't. I think they know what they are talking about....

 

[SimplyMe]

Tell it to the federal investigators.....

Tell that to the federal investigators

Tell that to the federal investigators. You all seem to know better than them. I don't. I think they know what they are talking about....

I don't need to, they got their conviction of Cohen. You seem to keep ignoring that or pretend it is unimportant.

 

[ralliann]

I don't need to, they got their conviction of Cohen. You seem to keep ignoring that or pretend it is unimportant.

Yep they did get their conviction. This is about Trump........and Cohen's conviction has nothing to do with Trump. Which you appear to continue to ignore. I don't...