Michael Cohen plea

[*michaelsean*]

fredtoast Wrote:You have got to be joking.

You seriously believe the media was sweeping the MOnica Lewinsky scandal under the rug until Drudge broke the story?

C'mon man.

The dress part. ABC came out with the story the day after Drudge based on their own sources. I doubt they did that in a day.

[GMDino]

(08-22-2018, 02:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The dress part.  ABC came out with the story the day after Drudge based on their own sources.  I doubt they did that in a day.

I know Drudge reported it first...but (at least then) there was still a bit of hesitancy from news agencies when it came to reporting "big news" like the dress.  ABC probably had some good sources but held it.  Why? I can't say.

Drudge was/is a blog that shares others stories 98% of the time.

In this one case he wasn't afraid because if he was wrong it didn't hurt him and if he was right he "scooped" the real news people.  

Probably why he likes to picture himself with that 1940's reporters hat all the time.  

[*michaelsean*]

(08-22-2018, 02:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know Drudge reported it first...but (at least then) there was still a bit of hesitancy from news agencies when it came to reporting "big news" like the dress.  ABC probably had some good sources but held it.  Why? I can't say.

Drudge was/is a blog that shares others stories 98% of the time.

In this one case he wasn't afraid because if he was wrong it didn't hurt him and if he was right he "scooped" the real news people.  

Probably why he likes to picture himself with that 1940's reporters hat all the time.  

I didn't believe a word he said til I saw the hat.

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-22-2018, 01:55 PM)Millhouse Wrote: One analysis I was listening to earlier was even though Cohen pleaded guilty, the trick here is finding proof that the money paid was solely not to hurt the campaign ie. hiding it from the voters, instead of being paid off to hide his affairs from his wife and children.

I dont see how the payments made were not done for the campaign myself, but from a legal pov, doesnt there have to be proof of that for this to be some real ammo against Trump?  I dont know, just throwing it out there though to see.

Thats probably where the tapes emails and texts come in

[BmorePat87]

I open this thread and it's now about a Clinton?

It'll be interesting to see where this whole thing goes and if the Republicans will ever be willing to drop the baggage they keep picking up.

[Benton]

(08-22-2018, 04:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I open this thread and it's now about a Clinton?

It'll be interesting to see where this whole thing goes and if the Republicans will ever be willing to drop the baggage they keep picking up.

To the first, of course it is. Any republican behaving badly is gong to be answered with “but Clinton.”

It’s not dissimilar from a few years ago when anything about a Democrat behaving badly was countered with “but bush.”

And to the second part, never. Republicans are still complaining about bill and even carter.

[GMDino]

New day, new story....




https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/22/donald-trump-payments-women-came-him-not-campaign-michael-cohen/1064933002/

Quote:President Trump: Cohen payments to women weren't illegal because they 'came from me'


President Donald Trump told the Fox News Channel that Michael Cohen's payments to two women who alleged affairs with Trump were not illegal because they "came from me" and not his campaign.


"They weren’t taken out of campaign finance, that’s the big thing," Trump said during an interview on FOX & Friends that will air Thursday morning. "That’s a much bigger thing.  Did they come out of the campaign? They didn’t come out of the campaign; they came from me."


Cohen, who is Trump's former attorney and personal fixer, told a federal court on Tuesday that he had paid off two women to silence them before the 2016 election at Trump’s "direction," and admitted that the payments were illegal.


But Trump told Fox that the payments weren't a campaign violation since they came from his personal funds.


"In fact, my first question when I heard about it was did they come out of the campaign because that could be a little dicey," Trump said. "And they didn’t come out of the campaign and that’s big. But they weren’t – that’s not a – it’s not even a campaign violation."

Trump said he didn't know about the payments until after Cohen made them. Asked by interviewer Ainsley Earhardt if he knew about them, Trump responded: "Later on I knew. Later on."



That contradicts Cohen's statement to the court that he had acted at Trump's direction when Trump was a candidate for president in 2016. It also contradicts audio tapes secretly recorded by Cohen that allegedly reveal Cohen and Trump talking about purchasing the rights to the story of a former Playboy model who alleges she had an affair with Trump. 


Trump has made contradictory statements about the payments in the past.


More: Trump suggests people not hire Michael Cohen
More: Did Michael Cohen lie to Congress?


In April, he told reporters aboard Air Force One that he knew nothing about $130,000 paid to porn star Stormy Daniels. In May, the president changed his story, acknowledging the payment to Daniels but saying that a non-disclosure agreement was "used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair."


"These agreements are very common among celebrities and people of wealth," Trump tweeted on May 3.

In the Fox interview, Trump also invoked an alleged campaign violation by former President Barack Obama.

"If you look at President Obama, he had a massive campaign violation but he had a different attorney general and they viewed it a lot differently," Trump said.


Trump is apparently referring to a civil violation by the Obama campaign, as opposed to the criminal violations that Cohen pleaded guilty to committing.


In 2008, Obama's campaign paid a whopping $375,000 fine for failing to report certain campaign contributions within 48 hours as required by federal election law.

[*bfine32*]

Well the above is a question I've had. Everyone in here is stating the payoff came from Campaign funds; however, I've never heard anyone confirm that. Would it make a difference (legally) if it did come from his private funds? To me that's a huge difference whether you're paying these women off with your own funds or funds donated to your campaign. 

I don't really need a "oh you're just supporting Trump" spill; simply curious. I freely admit what he did is (at best) morally wrong. 

[*michaelsean*]

So I have a question. Obviously since there is no appeal they can impeach and remove for any reason, but is impeachment supposed to be for things you do while you are in office?

[*michaelsean*]

(08-22-2018, 05:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well the above is a question I've had. Everyone in here is stating the payoff came from Campaign funds; however, I've never heard anyone confirm that. Would it make a difference (legally) if it did come from his private funds? To me that's a huge difference whether you're paying these women off with your own funds or funds donated to your campaign. 

I don't really need a "oh you're just supporting Trump" spill; simply curious. I freely admit what he did is (at best) morally wrong. 

I would think it made a difference if it were true which I wouldn't bet a whole lot on.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-22-2018, 11:20 AM)GMDino Wrote: And his attorney said he does not want a pardon?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/402972-attorney-cohen-would-not-accept-a-pardon-from-trump



My personal take remains the same as when Trump was running for office:  A guy who has spent his entire adult life swindling and covering up should have been smarter than to WANT to be in elected office where something could be looked at closely.

He thinks his "loyalty pledges" will protect him.  Not as POTUS. 

You gotta love him grabbing the moral high ground.  I mean it's kinda entertaining. 

[Dill]

(08-22-2018, 10:19 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: We have no shame. After all, he is OUR President.

I am held to a high standard of conduct by society. There are a lot of things that contribute to that (age, marital status, occupation, being a parent, etc.). Some of those standards are societal norms. Some are regulated by the various levels of government and/or professional organizations. Be that as it may, if my conduct breaks those standards then I am held to account. There are consequences. Try as I may, most of those consequences are not avoidable. And some have no consideration for mitigating circumstances.

I am by no means unique in this. In fact, almost everyone I know is in the same circumstance. And most of us make do with our daily existence and try to meet those standards of conduct as best we can because we don't want the consequences (or also because some of us also recognize and respect the need for those standards of conduct).

I do not believe it is unreasonable to require a higher standard of conduct by our elected officials. When I was an officer in the Army, we had a pretty darn high standard of conduct. We were public employees. We were "your tax dollars at work". When we were TDY somewhere, we were not supposed to wear a t-shirt with any slogans or pictures on them so that we did not misrepresent the Army or the government. God forbid that you got caught having an affair or wrote a bad check as an active duty officer. There were severe consequences. These are just a few examples of the many regulations we had. So, if an Army officer is held to such standards, why wouldn't elected officials be held to the same or even higher standards? And of all elected officials, shouldn't the President, our leader and representative to the world, be held to the highest standards?

No, Clinton's low standards do not excuse Trump's even lower standards. This is not a contest to reach the bottom. And a society which claims to have high standards but refuses to follow through on consequences is the equivalent of a society that hands out "participation trophies".

With you 100% on this B. I don't think all should be held to the standards of an Army officer, but officers certainly should, and why not elected officials?  Especially overseas, officers who don't pay their bills, cheat on their wives, and publicly express opinions offensive to a host nation certainly do reflect badly on the military and the nation.

As for people in positions of authority outside the military, and in professions like medicine and law, they too should be held to a higher standard, not just by their clients but by their own professional organizations. In fact they generally are. That doesn't mean we are looking to them for moral leadership or expect them to be perfect.

A president is not a "moral authority" in the same sense that a priest is, but to be effective he/she has to have trust and respect both from voters and from people in his/her immediate environment.  Beyond competence, important to leadership is fostering the sense that the leader would not ask followers to do what the leader would not. Also important is the sense that the leader doesn't use public office for personal gain--or to enrich friends and settle personal scores. The latter is expected in tribal organizations and often found in developing countries--to the detriment of their development. In our culture, such behavior testifies to an insufficient or totally lacking comprehension of the responsibilities of public office.

[BmorePat87]

(08-22-2018, 05:45 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So I have a question.  Obviously since there is no appeal they can impeach and remove for any reason, but is impeachment supposed to be for things you do while you are in office?

When is not specified in the constitution, just that it is for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 

Legal precedent suggests that the President cannot be indicted while in office, but impeachment and removal would then allow them to be charged.

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2018, 05:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well the above is a question I've had. Everyone in here is stating the payoff came from Campaign funds; however, I've never heard anyone confirm that. Would it make a difference (legally) if it did come from his private funds? To me that's a huge difference whether you're paying these women off with your own funds or funds donated to your campaign. 

I don't really need a "oh you're just supporting Trump" spill; simply curious. I freely admit what he did is (at best) morally wrong. 

(08-22-2018, 05:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I would think it made a difference if it were true which I wouldn't bet a whole lot on.

I touched on this earlier on, but no, it doesn't make a difference.

Cohen's payoffs are considered a loan (since Trump is claiming it was paid back to him), which is a contribution, to the campaign, even if they never touched campaign accounts. Because the intent was to keep information from coming out that could be damaging to the campaign, the value of the payoffs is a contribution/loan to the campaign that was above the maximum allowable limits and not reported. People are talking about this situation without understand why it was a campaign finance violation. It has nothing to do with whether the campaign made the payment directly, the law is set up so that indirect contributions such as these are also against the law.

[Dill]

(08-22-2018, 05:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well the above is a question I've had. Everyone in here is stating the payoff came from Campaign funds; however, I've never heard anyone confirm that. Would it make a difference (legally) if it did come from his private funds? To me that's a huge difference whether you're paying these women off with your own funds or funds donated to your campaign. 

I don't really need a "oh you're just supporting Trump" spill; simply curious. I freely admit what he did is (at best) morally wrong. 

To the law it is a huge difference as well.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/08/22/dershowitz_candidate_entitled_to_pay_hush_money_committed_no_election_crime.html

According to Alan Dershowitz, there is no limit on how much a candidate can contribute to his own campaign. So if Trump used personal funds to pay off the women, in the form of a "loan" to Cohen, and those funds are regarded as campaign contributions, then they are perfectly legal contributions to his own campaign--even if he gave Stormy a million dollars.   So no law is violated; just that something was hidden from Melania, and from voters who, for the most part, would not care if Trump paid off porn stars and playmates. But if Cohen up and decided to pay off the ladies on his own, that WOULD be a campaign violation, the money coming from a 3rd party. (Dershowitz is pretty eccentric, though, a contrarian on many legal issues.)

If the money originally came from the campaign itself (Trump denies this), which would have the legal status of a corporation (not Trump's private stash of money), then Trump's actions would be subject to campaign finance laws.  If Trump reimbursed the campaign at a later date, then he could argue that even though the money was funneled through the campaign, it was not "from" the campaign since when the books are tallied, that 130,000 will not be missing.

Just rambling here, but a close look at how the record of payments to whom or what and when might also correlate to the public disclosure of the affair. If it does, that would suggest money did come from the campaign and Trump only "paid back" the campaign (Cohen) when the transaction was in danger of investigation. I am wondering who was in control of the campaign funds, what records were actually kept.

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2018, 07:10 PM)Dill Wrote: To the law it is a huge difference as well.

According to Alan Dershowitz, there is no limit on how much a candidate can contribute to his own campaign. So if Trump used personal funds to pay off the women, and those funds are regarded as campaign contributions, then they are perfectly legal contributions to his own campaign--even if he gave Stormy a million dollars. (Dershowitz is pretty eccentric, though, a contrarian on many legal issues.)  So no law is violated; just that something was hidden from Melania, and from voters who, for the most part, would not care if Trump paid off porn stars and playmates.

If the money originally came from the campaign itself, which would have the legal status of a corporation (not Trump's private stash of money), then Trump's actions would be subject to campaign finance laws.  If Trump reimbursed the campaign at a later date, then he could argue that even though the money was funneled through the campaign, it was not "from" the campaign since when the books are tallied, that 130,000 will not be missing.

Just rambling here, but a close look at how the record of payments to whom or what and when might also correlate to the public disclosure of the affair. If it does, that would suggest Trump only "paid back" the campaign when the transaction was in danger of investigation.

You're missing that the original payment was made by Cohen. He took out a home equity line for the payment to Daniels. Even if paid back by Trump, that constitutes a loan to the campaign because of its purpose/timing and thus a contribution by Cohen.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Here's how this will play out,

The Left will scream "IMPEACH"
The people will vote in Republicans.
The Left will continue to scream and yell "IMPEACH"
It won't happen because Republicans controll everything.

Trump will say, Cohen committed the crime, not him. Trump will say he told Cohen to pay off the girls but Cohen messed up by not telling him the legal ramifications or went and took money from the campaign to pay them off. Trumps new lawyer will try the case and argue that Trump did no wrong because of Cohen.

Or Trump will say, "I didn't know, what's the fine" and be done with it.

If Democrats do get the power this year and impeach Trump, he will resign giving Pence 10 years as president, lol.
Is that what you really want?
10 years of Pence?

[Bengalzona]

What I wonder is, why the heck didn't Trump payoff his sex playmates with his own money in the first place? I thought he was supposed to be rich and all that.

[fredtoast]

(08-22-2018, 07:16 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: If Democrats do get the power this year and impeach Trump, he will resign giving Pence 10 years as president, lol.
Is that what you really want?
10 years of Pence?

If the people decide to vote Democrat how does Pence get re-elected?

[Dill]

(08-22-2018, 10:46 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: This is among the excuses given. "Everyone knows that all politicians are crooked.". Or "I'm not perfect. And I don't expect elected officials to be any better than me.". And most of us are guilty of playing along with these excuses at some point in our lives. We contribute to the reduced expectations. But we don't have to contribute to reduced standards of conduct. There is a still a line there between expectations and standards. And, moreover, we can also change our expectations.

'nother rep for this.