BUSTED: National Enquirer admits it committed a felony ‘in concert with’ Trump’s campaign

I stand corrected.

 

"In coordination with the trump campaign" is the line. If you want to try and argue that anything regarding AMI and their coordination with the trump campaign was done without trump's direction or knowledge, that is your hill to die upon, but trump has a very lengthy and very personal connection to the national enquirer.

And they just agreed to tell prosecutors everything they know about trump.

 

He can cite the fact that two different people and entities, both of whom are well versed in the legal field, just pled guilty to felony violations while also stating that they did so at the direction (or in coordination) with trump (and his campaign).

 

...what?

 

And your answer to the questions I asked is?

 

...while staring down the barrel of a prosecutorial gun being wielded by people promising a lighter sentence if they say the right thing....

 

From what I understand they said that Cohen admitted that he made an illegal contribution which Trump paid back with his own money. The money to McDougal came from another company that wasn't funded by the campaign. Just because Trump ordered payment doesn't prove that the money came from campaign funds.

What campaign funds did Trump use? Did the money come from Trump's campaign? Is there proof that they used money from campaign funds or is this just an assumption on the media's part? Please include link.

 

"site"?

Did you mean CITE?

 

Let me help.
First.. This is not a Muller probe. It is the NY AG.
Second... Cohen has confessed and pled guilty to the felony of campaign finance violation with the intent to defraud the US voter.
Third... Pecker has confirmed that the payment was to protect the campaign. (confirming Cohen's statement)
Forth... A Trump organization member was also in on it (probably Weisellberg since he got immunity).
Fifth... There is at least one recording that indicates Trump was in on it.

 

What did anybody (who gets mixed up with the Trump Crime Syndicate) expect?

You associate with Rats, you get poisoned.

 

Otherwise known as "acting rationally upon the advice of counsel."

 

FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”

 

FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”

 

The issue of whether money was "campaign funds" is entirely dependent on the intent by which the money was spent. A person can fund their own campaign, right? It doesn't matter if that money came directly from their bank account or if it was first wired to some account labeled "campaign funds." It only matter whether they spent that money with the primary purpose of helping the campaign.

Cohen says that money was spent to help the campaign. Trump admitted that his campaign owed a debt to Cohen for those funds.

 

Cohen said he used his own money therefore he contributed more than the law allows. Trump has no limit on how much he spends on himself and
FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”

 

Grow up dude. Really?

 

Here some help for ya.
FECA (52 U.S.C. 30114 (b)(2)) specifically says that campaign-related expenses do not include any expenditures “used to fulfill any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s election campaign.”

 

Did you want to make the argument that Cohen or his attorneys were unaware of that exception or did not think to see if they could make it apply in their case?

 

Cohen is guilty as charged. He used his own money and contributed over the allowable amount. Trump is in the clear.

 

Was it with Trump personal money?

 

The argument is that Trump has a history of similar payoffs going back decades and he would have paid off those two prostitutes to protect his family, his company and his brand irrespective of the campaign.... which makes him absolutely and unquestionably NOT [wait for it] GUILTY according to the FEC laws and rules, not some liberal hacks in SDNY

Got it, Avenatti?

 

Well yes, always a good idea when staring down the barrel of a prosecutorial gun being wielded by people promising a lighter sentence if you say what they want to hear....

 

I think it was well known before the campaign.

 

Only if it was solely a campaign contribution or expenditure. It was not.

 

What was the illogical part?