Cohen hearing

[GMDino]

And since we were talking about Meadows.

1. Mark Meadows owes Barack Obama an apology.
2. He should unequivocally condemn his past statements.
3. If you wonder how Trump got elected, watch this video.
The ignorance and racism contained in the question, the audience laughter and the candidates’ response is horrifying. https://t.co/fUa2fnEZbH

— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) February 28, 2019

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I just wanted to remind everyone of the following;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-to-pay-375000-fine-for-omitting-some-donors-names-in-2008/2013/01/04/78973402-56bb-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3cd35d753592

Quote:The document shows that the Obama campaign failed to disclose the identities of donors responsible for $2 million in contributions in the weeks ahead of the election. The campaign also misreported the dates of $85 million in other contributions.

In addition, the Obama campaign also kept $1.3 million in contributions that were above the legal maximum allowed for a federal campaign, failing to return them within the 60 days required by law. The campaign kept almost $874,000 of those donations until the FEC discovered they were unlawful.

Now, I'm no math wiz, but I think the amounts in discussion above are significantly higher than the money paid to Stormy Daniels.  I'd also point out that Trump has a history of paying hush money to former mistresses/hook ups, so a defense that he was just protecting his wife and kids from the affair being publicly known rather holds water.  Even if it does not, I don't recall anyone talking about impeaching Obama over his campaign finance violations, and he wasn't exactly well liked by the GOP.  I'll say it again, the Stormy Daniels payoff is not a smoking gun, it's a stupid distraction.

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 12:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I just wanted to remind everyone of the following;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-to-pay-375000-fine-for-omitting-some-donors-names-in-2008/2013/01/04/78973402-56bb-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3cd35d753592

Now, I'm no math wiz, but I think the amounts in discussion above are significantly higher than the money paid to Stormy Daniels.  I'd also point out that Trump has a history of paying hush money to former mistresses/hook ups, so a defense that he was just protecting his wife and kids from the affair being publicly known rather holds water.  Even if it does not, I don't recall anyone talking about impeaching Obama over his campaign finance violations, and he wasn't exactly well liked by the GOP.  I'll say it again, the Stormy Daniels payoff is not a smoking gun, it's a stupid distraction.

This has been discussed.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/676198885/experts-debunk-trumps-claim-that-cohens-campaign-violations-are-similar-to-obama

Quote:One of the ways President Trump and his allies have tried to downplay Michael Cohen's actions is by comparing them to President Obama. In a tweet this week, President Trump described hush money payments to women claiming they slept with Trump as a simple private transaction. And he argued that these campaign finance violations are similar to reporting errors from Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign.

We're going to look at that claim now with Rick Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine. Welcome back to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED.


RICK HASEN: Good to be with you.


SHAPIRO: Experts have debunked President Trump's claims that these violations were similar. But I'd like you to help us dig into why. First, what was the Obama campaign's violation in 2008?


HASEN: Sure. So you have to understand that a presidential campaign is a an operation involving hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars these days. And so there's a lot of paperwork that needs to be filed. And both the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign ended up paying fines because they were a little late on getting some reports in. In the period close to the election, you have to file reports of certain expenditures within 48 hours of making them.


And on some of these, the campaigns missed the filing deadline, filed as soon as they could and then just paid a fine for doing that. It's a civil thing. It's run through the Federal Election Commission - not based on any one willfully violating the law but instead just the kind of paperwork errors that are inevitable when you're talking about such a large operation on such a tight timeframe.


SHAPIRO: So the Obama campaign reported the violation, paid the fine. In contrast, what did we see with the Trump campaign?


HASEN: Well, so you have to understand that Trump has made conflicting arguments in his tweets this week. On the one hand, he's arguing these are not campaign related. They're totally private. We don't need to report anything. And then on the other hand, he's saying, my lawyer didn't report them. He should have reported them. But if he did, it's just a civil matter, and it's no big deal. The way it normally works when you have a campaign filing and it's late, as we saw in the Obama and McCain campaigns, is you quickly fess up to your error. And then you file the correct reports and take your lumps. And that's that.


Here what we had was Trump denying the payments for over a year, the payments being funneled through a limited liability corporation - or through the National Enquirer's corporation - paying to these women with money being paid back masqueraded as retainer payments or payments for technical services, structured across a series of $35,000 payments over a year. That's not the kind of thing that you would see if someone committed a technical violation of the campaign finance law. Instead, they would just admit they did it, pay the fine and be done with it.


---

SHAPIRO: I want to play you a clip from NBC's "Meet The Press" on Sunday when Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul effectively argued that this kind of thing happens all the time.


(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "MEET THE PRESS")

RAND PAUL: I personally think that if someone makes an error in filing paperwork or not categorizing a campaign contribution correctly, it shouldn't be jail time. It ought to be a fine. And so it's just like a lot of other things that we've done in Washington. We've overcriminalized campaign finance.

SHAPIRO: Professor Hasen, what do you think of Senator Paul's argument here?

HASEN: I think there are some good arguments to be made that campaign finance is too complicated. There's a lot of paperwork that needs to be filed, especially involving people who are engaged in very small-scale operations. But that's not what this situation is at all. And in fact if it was willfully done, it exposes the president's potential criminal liability.

More at the link.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2019, 12:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: This has been discussed.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/676198885/experts-debunk-trumps-claim-that-cohens-campaign-violations-are-similar-to-obama


More at the link.

Which then leaves us with the fact that Trump has a well established track record of paying hush money to mistresses/wives/hook ups.  It would be extremely difficult to prove he wasn't paying off Daniels for any reason other than his usual one.

[Belsnickel]

(03-01-2019, 02:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which then leaves us with the fact that Trump has a well established track record of paying hush money to mistresses/wives/hook ups.  It would be extremely difficult to prove he wasn't paying off Daniels for any reason other than his usual one.

I would tend to agree. Too much reliance on circumstantial evidence exists in this one. You'd really need to find an email or something saying "pay her off or this will kill the campaign!" or something. Short of that, it's not a solid case. Though this being a civil (I believe) case, it is only preponderance, so who knows?

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 02:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which then leaves us with the fact that Trump has a well established track record of paying hush money to mistresses/wives/hook ups.  It would be extremely difficult to prove he wasn't paying off Daniels for any reason other than his usual one.

Put not a well established track record of deliberately breaking campaign finance laws.

I mean he has an established track record of breaking laws and getting sued and fined and losing...but this is a specific instance.

And leaves out the "evolving" (if you will) explanations from DJT and his mouthpieces from it never happened to it did happen but it's not a crime.

[GMDino]

I would like to add though that the "defense" by those willing to defend Trump on this is "Eh, he's had lots of affairs and apid people off.  What's the big deal?  So what if he's a lying, cheating scumbag.  He's OUR lying cheating scumbag!"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2019, 02:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Put not a well established track record of deliberately breaking campaign finance laws.

You saying this makes me think you're missing the point being made.

Quote:I mean he has an established track record of breaking laws and getting sued and fined and losing...but this is a specific instance.

True, and also irrelevant.  The Daniels payoff has clear precedent in Trump's history.  His paying hush money to women he's slept with has been done numerous times over the course of his life.  Hence, his paying Daniels is easily explained as more of the same.  As Bel correctly points out, violating campaign finance law with this payment would entail his paying her specifically so her talking about the affair doesn't hurt his campaign.  I made this point the moment this "story" came out.  Short of hard evidence of Trump saying "pay her off or she's going to hurt my campaign" this is a huge nothing.

Quote:And leaves out the "evolving" (if you will) explanations from DJT and his mouthpieces from it never happened to it did happen but it's not a crime.

A non-disclosure agreement usually prevents both parties from discussing the facts.  Regardless, his denials would only be further evidence that he didn't want the matter discussed to avoid public embarrassment for himself or his family.  As the Obama example above illustrates, if you admit you violated rules you pay a fine and move on.  I get it, you're very anxious for this to be a smoking gun but it's not even a leaky water pistol.

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 02:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You saying this makes me think you're missing the point being made.




True, and also irrelevant.  The Daniels payoff has clear precedent in Trump's history.  His paying hush money to women he's slept with has been done numerous times over the course of his life.  Hence, his paying Daniels is easily explained as more of the same.  As Bel correctly points out, violating campaign finance law with this payment would entail his paying her specifically so her talking about the affair doesn't hurt his campaign.  I made this point the moment this "story" came out.  Short of hard evidence of Trump saying "pay her off or she's going to hurt my campaign" this is a huge nothing.


A non-disclosure agreement usually prevents both parties from discussing the facts.  Regardless, his denials would only be further evidence that he didn't want the matter discussed to avoid public embarrassment for himself or his family.  As the Obama example above illustrates, if you admit you violated rules you pay a fine and move on.  I get it, you're very anxious for this to be a smoking gun but it's not even a leaky water pistol.

I'm not "anxious" for anything.  I'm merely saying that just because he's a scum who cheats often and pays off women doesn't mean he didn't break a law this time with his "deliberate" hiding of the transaction versus Obama turning in the information and paying the fine.

Again, just because he's always been a lowlife doesn't mean he didn't do something a little worse this time.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-01-2019, 02:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: I would like to add though that the "defense" by those willing to defend Trump on this is "Eh, he's had lots of affairs and apid people off.  What's the big deal?  So what if he's a lying, cheating scumbag.  He's OUR lying cheating scumbag!" 

Unprecedented.  

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2019, 10:27 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You guys are kind of no different than them.  A lot of unsubstantiated claims from a liar and dirtball that you guys are willing to buy because you like what he's saying.  

I don't believe a word he says that does not have some independent evidence to back it up.  But the type of behavior he describes is no different from Trumps long history of lying and misbehavior.

The biggest benefit of the Cohen testimony is that he named names and provided details that can be investigated for confirmation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2019, 02:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm not "anxious" for anything.  I'm merely saying that just because he's a scum who cheats often and pays off women doesn't mean he didn't break a law this time with his "deliberate" hiding of the transaction versus Obama turning in the information and paying the fine.

Again, just because he's always been a lowlife doesn't mean he didn't do something a little worse this time.

It has a massive amount to do with it as we're talking about a violation that is predicated entirely on intent.  Was Trump's intent to pay off Daniels to spare himself and his family embarrassment or did he do it to prevent damage to his campaign?  That being the case every piece of evidence that could be used to prove intent is of immense value.  Evidence of past payments of the exact same type made prior to Trump ever being a candidate establishes a clear precedent of this type of conduct being engaged in for reasons obviously unrelated to a political campaign.  That being an inarguable fact one would need considerable, concrete, evidence that this was not the case in this instance.

As far as Trump being a serial adulterer, this was a known factor during his presidential run and he was elected anyways.  Being morally reprehensible is not a crime and isn't related to the alleged campaign finance violation anyways.  Consequently, while not speaking well for his character, this fact is completely irrelevant.

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 04:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It has a massive amount to do with it as we're talking about a violation that is predicated entirely on intent.  Was Trump's intent to pay off Daniels to spare himself and his family embarrassment or did he do it to prevent damage to his campaign?  That being the case every piece of evidence that could be used to prove intent is of immense value.  Evidence of past payments of the exact same type made prior to Trump ever being a candidate establishes a clear precedent of this type of conduct being engaged in for reasons obviously unrelated to a political campaign.  That being an inarguable fact one would need considerable, concrete, evidence that this was not the case in this instance.

As far as Trump being a serial adulterer, this was a known factor during his presidential run and he was elected anyways.  Being morally reprehensible is not a crime and isn't related to the alleged campaign finance violation anyways.  Consequently, while not speaking well for his character, this fact is completely irrelevant.

To answer the bold: Yes.

If someone is a thief because he always needs money.  And then while office (and still needing money) he steals again do we say "Oh, well we knew he was a thief so this must not have anything to do with needing money for the campaign"?

I get that being skinhound that pays hush money isn't illegal...until it happens during a campaign for office and the question comes up where the funds came from.

I can drive 45 in a 40 and probably get away with it. But as soon as I rive 45 in a 25 I'm gonna risk getting caught.  "I always go over the speed limit" won't be a good defense.

The bigger question now is if DJT got caught.  I guess that's why they do investigations.  I guess that why I didn't say he was guilty OR give him a pass.

But some want to defend him hard core.  I understand.

[GMDino]

You proposed two reasons for this possible campaign violation to be nothing.

(03-01-2019, 12:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I just wanted to remind everyone of the following;

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-to-pay-375000-fine-for-omitting-some-donors-names-in-2008/2013/01/04/78973402-56bb-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3cd35d753592

Now, I'm no math wiz, but I think the amounts in discussion above are significantly higher than the money paid to Stormy Daniels.  I'd also point out that Trump has a history of paying hush money to former mistresses/hook ups, so a defense that he was just protecting his wife and kids from the affair being publicly known rather holds water.  Even if it does not, I don't recall anyone talking about impeaching Obama over his campaign finance violations, and he wasn't exactly well liked by the GOP.  I'll say it again, the Stormy Daniels payoff is not a smoking gun, it's a stupid distraction.

One was not so good

(03-01-2019, 12:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: This has been discussed.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/676198885/experts-debunk-trumps-claim-that-cohens-campaign-violations-are-similar-to-obama


More at the link.

So that left us with:

(03-01-2019, 02:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which then leaves us with the fact that Trump has a well established track record of paying hush money to mistresses/wives/hook ups.  It would be extremely difficult to prove he wasn't paying off Daniels for any reason other than his usual one.

But now you say:

(03-01-2019, 04:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It has a massive amount to do with it as we're talking about a violation that is predicated entirely on intent.  Was Trump's intent to pay off Daniels to spare himself and his family embarrassment or did he do it to prevent damage to his campaign?  That being the case every piece of evidence that could be used to prove intent is of immense value.  Evidence of past payments of the exact same type made prior to Trump ever being a candidate establishes a clear precedent of this type of conduct being engaged in for reasons obviously unrelated to a political campaign.  That being an inarguable fact one would need considerable, concrete, evidence that this was not the case in this instance.

As far as Trump being a serial adulterer, this was a known factor during his presidential run and he was elected anyways.  Being morally reprehensible is not a crime and isn't related to the alleged campaign finance violation anyways.  Consequently, while not speaking well for his character, this fact is completely irrelevant.

It's completely relevant if someone wants to make the case that it is his very history of being "morally reprehensible" that allows him to say the payoff was just business as usual and not to protect him during the campaign.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-01-2019, 04:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't believe a word he says that does not have some independent evidence to back it up.  But the type of behavior he describes is no different from Trumps long history of lying and misbehavior.

The biggest benefit of the Cohen testimony is that he named names and provided details that can be investigated for confirmation.

I officially remove you from “you guys”

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2019, 05:13 PM)GMDino Wrote: You proposed two reasons for this possible campaign violation to be nothing.


One was not so good

I've actually, consistently, made one argument on this topic since it became a topic.  The Obama issue I raised as a comparison of campaign finance violation.  

Quote:So that left us with:


But now you say:


It's completely relevant if someone wants to make the case that it is his very history of being "morally reprehensible" that allows him to say the payoff was just business as usual and not to protect him during the campaign.

It would be really helpful if someone other than me explained to you the legal difficulties inherent in establishing intent and why my argument applies to that directly.  I say that because you seemed determined to disagree with me while not really addressing my argument.  I'll take one more stab at it before relaxing for the weekend.

In order for the Daniels' payoff to be a campaign finance violation the intent behind the payoff has to be that she was silenced so she would not hurt Trump's campaign.  You have stated this is demonstrably the case.  I have asked you to make a fact based argument with tangible evidence that this is so.  You have thus far failed to even attempt to do this.  I raise Trump's history of engaging in these exact type of payoffs because in every other instance it is demonstrably certain that the intent behind the payoffs was not to prevent damage to an campaign.  This is because the rest of them took place when Trump was not campaigning.

Any lawyer not recently lobotomized would instantly point to Trump's history of this exact type of behavior to demonstrate that the Daniels' payment was simply the most recent example of a well established pattern of behavior.  As intent is the sole determinant of whether a campaign finance violation took place this instantly throws credible doubt that this was the intent of the payout.  Consequently, without physical evidence that the payment was made with the intent to prevent damage to his campaign you have no real case other than pure conjecture.  It "might be" true isn't good enough.

You raise Trump's history of this type of amoral behavior as a negative, which in almost any other situation it would be.  But in this case it provides evidence that is is normal behavior for him, and normal behavior not tied to running for political office.  Morally and ethically it's bad, but that's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Now, if you still don't get it I must apologize as I won't be expending any further energy attempting to explain further.  Enjoy the rest of your day and your weekend.

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2019, 08:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Any lawyer not recently lobotomized would instantly point to Trump's history of this exact type of behavior to demonstrate that the Daniels' payment was simply the most recent example of a well established pattern of behavior.  As intent is the sole determinant of whether a campaign finance violation took place this instantly throws credible doubt that this was the intent of the payout.  Consequently, without physical evidence that the payment was made with the intent to prevent damage to his campaign you have no real case other than pure conjecture.  It "might be" true isn't good enough.

First any lawyer would just point to the fact that Trump paid hush money to two women during the campaign for affairs that were over a decade old.  If it had nothing to do with his campaign he would not have waited 10 years to pay them.

Second any attorney would point to the fact that Donald continued to lie about the hush money even when the facts of the affaire were public.  At that point his wife knew so there was no need for him to lie about it to hide it from her.  The only reason he did was because he knew it was an illegal campaign finance violation. 

Third you have a man willing to confess that it was a campaign finance violation.  You can call Cohen a liar all you want, but you can not explain why he would lie about something that sent him to prison.

So there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to the payment being because of the campaign.  And people get convicted based on circumstantial evidence all the time.





BTW I did not realize he had a "well established patter of behavior" when it came to hush money.  How many times has he done it and when was the last time before he became a candidate for POTUS?

[Vas Deferens]

SSF just wished Dino a good weekend. Close this whole ***** forum down, let’s end on a high note.

Have a good weekend everyone except Michaelsean who still needs to SHUT UP

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2019, 08:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: First any lawyer would just point to the fact that Trump paid hush money to two women during the campaign for affairs that were over a decade old.  If it had nothing to do with his campaign he would not have waited 10 years to pay them.

A fair point.  An easy counter argument was that his running made them come forward, prompting the payments.  This still doesn't mean the payments were made to influence the election.

Quote:Second any attorney would point to the fact that Donald continued to lie about the hush money even when the facts of the affaire were public.  At that point his wife knew so there was no need for him to lie about it to hide it from her.  The only reason he did was because he knew it was an illegal campaign finance violation. 

His attorney would point this out?  I would hope not.  If they signed a NDA, wouldn't Trump be bound by it as well?  In any event, as the Obama campaign clearly demonstrated, admitting you made a campaign funding oopsie just results in a fine if you own it.

Quote:Third you have a man willing to confess that it was a campaign finance violation.  You can call Cohen a liar all you want, but you can not explain why he would lie about something that sent him to prison.

I don't have to call Cohen a liar, he's been convicted for lying.  That rather speaks for itself.

Quote:So there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to the payment being because of the campaign.  And people get convicted based on circumstantial evidence all the time.

They sure do, because outside of direct witnesses and video all evidence is circumstantial, as you well know.

Quote:BTW I did not realize he had a "well established patter of behavior" when it came to hush money.  How many times has he done it and when was the last time before he became a candidate for POTUS?

Ivana and Marla Maples both leap readily to mind.

[GMDino]

(03-01-2019, 08:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: First any lawyer would just point to the fact that Trump paid hush money to two women during the campaign for affairs that were over a decade old.  If it had nothing to do with his campaign he would not have waited 10 years to pay them.

Second any attorney would point to the fact that Donald continued to lie about the hush money even when the facts of the affaire were public.  At that point his wife knew so there was no need for him to lie about it to hide it from her.  The only reason he did was because he knew it was an illegal campaign finance violation. 

Third you have a man willing to confess that it was a campaign finance violation.  You can call Cohen a liar all you want, but you can not explain why he would lie about something that sent him to prison.

So there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that points to the payment being because of the campaign.  And people get convicted based on circumstantial evidence all the time.





BTW I did not realize he had a "well established patter of behavior" when it came to hush money.  How many times has he done it and when was the last time before he became a candidate for POTUS?

Fred you're just an attorney.  How DARE you suggest that there are many ways to get around SSF's (who is well versed in damn near EVERYTHING we talk about on these boards) take on how Trump can simply say he's a lying, cheating jerk and that he paid those women off solely to save the feelings of his wife...who he cheated on (repeatedly).

If you were a hard core Trump supporter you'd understand.