Michael Cohen plea

[Belsnickel]

(08-22-2018, 08:16 PM)Vlad Wrote: There was no violation any way you look at it.

Perhaps you folks might want to check out what former SEC chief had to say....

“Payments used to silence people who have potentially damaging information on a political candidate cannot be classified as a campaign contribution, according to the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Bradley Smith. ‘Not everything that might benefit a candidate is a campaign expense,’ Smith wrote in an editorial for the Wall Street Journal.

“Personal debts, for example, are ‘related to’ the campaign—if unpaid, the candidate’s reputation might suffer, Bradley wrote. ‘A Rolex watch, a new suit, or a haircut might help a candidate look good on the trail. … If paying hush money is a campaign expense, a candidate would be required to make that payment with campaign funds.'

“Cohen’s payment to the woman who claims to have had an affair with Trump would have to be paid with campaign funds if it is to be viewed as a campaign contribution. But paying someone to keep silent about an alleged extramarital affair is not an expense solely related to a campaign, Bradley explained. ‘There are many reasons, including personal and commercial ones, why Mr. Trump might want to keep allegations of extramarital affairs out of the press,’ Bradley wrote.”


Furthermore this payment to Stormy Daniels was made Oct. 27. The election was less than 2 weeks later.

Any half wit could deduce that this payment would have had zero impact on the campaign.


Dream on haters.

Except, Cohen was charged for the crime and pleaded guilty to it. So an anti-campaign finance reform, Republican appointed, former FEC chairman has his interpretation of the laws, but it seems the SDNY, the courts, and Cohen himself recognize what happened as criminal.