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

Which is defined as a campaign contribution.

Even RW rag Washington Examiner disagrees with you--you need to stop with posting your own uninformed beliefs--start researching:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...d-to-and-just-what-it-means-for-trump-legally

 

I have quote the relevant part that say it was money from outside donors or from campaign coffers.

 

1. Mueller doesn't mention anything about payments to women... At all... not his domain.
2. We can 100% agree that if there wasn't a campaign, there wouldn't be a legal issue. Which is why he should have paid this stuff in early 2015, before he announced... Dumbass...

Normally people considering running for office are asked by a responsible party if they have any porn stars in the closet. Now, I know in Trumps case, you can't keep track of all of the unauthorized (by marriage ethics, not legally) ass he accumulated, but it was still his responsibility to try and get this stuff taken care of THEN, not within weeks of the election.

 

Where? I see you pulling things out of thin air, but no actual source is cited.

 

OMG. I does NOT matter who the primary benefactor was, Trump, or his campaign, because the campaign did benefit from it.

It doesn't matter where the money came from, as long as the campaign new that the payment was made, they had to report it

FFS, the contortions of the right here to now try to claim this wasn't a benefit to the campaign is RIDICULOUS

And for the record, Cohen, in his sworn testimony said that both he and Trump knew it was !

 

No it was a personal legal matter his attorney was handling for him and it was a legal expense. Something he would have done regardless of the campaign.

In fact, neither the Federal Election Commission—which is the independent agency tasked with enforcing the Federal Election Campaign Act—nor its former commissioners would likely agree with the overaggressive view that the Southern District is taking. Indeed, the Southern District’s aggressive stance on this issue might have violated the Justice Department’s own policy....

First, his theory that anything intended to “influence” an election is a campaign-related expense fails to take into account the statutory limitation on this definition. 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.”
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12...-campaign-finance-laws-and-neither-did-trump/

 

You said it's in the sentencing memo, quote it.

 

Another factless story to bolster wishful thinking......

 

He's here to deflect... no worries....

I agree with them that if Trump had paid the money, personally or directly from the campaign, AND reported it, he wouldn't be in a situation now. But that wasn't the goal here, obviously.

I'm loving the "new" argument that Cohen would have done this anyway, even if Trump was not a candidate. Then WHY DIDN'T HE, before the campaign started??? Not like they didn't have a decade to get this taken care of..

It's sorta fun to watch the new crap crawling out of the floorboards on this topic.

 

That's a real fine argument you got there...it'd be a shame if someone were to point out that this argument would be the exact same defense used by Cohen but for the fact that he literally just pled guilty for a felony.

 

You are perfectly free to "conspire" with your attorney on how to handle a legal matter.

 

Cohen was Trump's attorney, he was giving him legal advice. Lanny Davis was asked the key question this morning, did Cohen tell Trump what they were doing was illegal. He could not say yes. And again prove it was SOLELY for the benefit of the campaign, that he would not have done so otherwise.

 

"Career prosecutors here in New York have evidence that the president of the United States committed a felony by ordering and paying Michael Cohen to break the law,” Napolitano said while speaking on Fox News. “How do we know that? They told that to the federal judge. Under the rules, they can’t tell that to the federal judge unless they actually have that hardcore evidence. Under the rules, they can’t tell that to the federal judge unless they intend to do something with that evidence."

 

And we know those career prosecutors are out to get Trump. Again what is the crime? Since when did a lawyer facilitating the payment for a NDA become a crime?

 

Isn't it funny how prosecutors go after criminals...it's almost like it's their job or something...

 

No, I didn't, my confused amigo.

You must not own the brand new google machine. Otherwise you could look things up for yourself.

 

Sorry it was egoboy, you jumped into the middle of it. His claim, his obligation.

 

When they have a crime else they go looking for one and when they have a bia's we are all in danger.

 

1. Cohens sentencing statement says: Cohen played a role in two similar schemes to purchase the rights to stories-each from women who claimed to have affairs with
Trump (Individual-1)

2. Trump didn't seek out Daniels or even think she was going to come forward from 10 years ago. Daniels started a bidding war between Trump and the National Enquirer to buy her off in June of 2016. All trump has to confirm is even if there wasn't a campaign I would have settled the case to hush the story to protect my family and business. Until Daniels came forward and threatened to talk to the media, there wasn't anything to talk about. He had consensual sex with here where no crimes were involved.

 

1. Right... the sentencing memo from SDNY, not Mueller... 2 different things, but oh well... details don't matter anymore
2. Right again... but here's the 130K question... WHY was Stormy coming forward in June 2016?? Because she was running short of cash? Because she wanted to be called a liar on Twitter?? Hmmm ... what was going on in national politics in June 2016??

I think the reverse is true... Trump is going to have to make some kind of claim that we would have paid her off if she had come forward before the campaign (which will likely expose other payoffs). Which he won't, because he still ****ing claims he never had sex with her...

Don't you ever worry your head will explode trying to come up with new and deficient angles??

 

I am not defending Trump and I have no doubt he and Daniels hooked up so lets put that to bed. Daniels came forward for exact reason that happened. She got paid 130 grand. She came forward when it would have been the most profitable. Obviously. That being said and only working within the limits of the law:

They signed an NDA which is not public information. Trump will rightly argue
1. That he determined it would have cost more to fight the claim than it would be to pay her
2. He was running for president he just didn't have time to argue about it.
3. It would have cost him 3 times that much in attorney fees,
4. He has the right to privacy as determined in the NDA
5. Had she come forward 5 years earlier he would have made the same decision to protect his reputation
6. In no way does the NDA provide any admission or evidence of a sexual encounter

Thats is what his lawyers will argue under the privacy act and the statutes of the Campaign Finance that allow this payment as an act that would have occurred with or without the campaign and there isn't anything they can do to prove otherwise.

 

And now we get an update to this story:
Trump was in the room during hush money discussions with tabloid publisher

 

But he wasn't listening....

 

crimes are not protected just cause your partner in crime is a lawyer

 

Really, I am quoting here from your article: The meeting between Cohen, Pecker and unnamed other parties to discuss suppressing stories was referenced in the criminal information document to which Cohen pleaded guilty.

First off, Are we now guessing on who attended this meeting to get a charge? Second, Even if he was there my previous post explains he didn't commit a crime.
Come on man, Really?