Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
giuliani already admitted on television that the repayments of the hush-money to cohen happened throughout 2017 during trump's presidency ( and trump has now admitted knowledge of those reimbursements ).
In pleading guilty, Cohen admitted to participation in a scheme to pay hush money payments to two women -- Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels -- with whom Trump is alleged to have had affairs. Missing, though, were the details of Trump's intentional involvement in criminal activity substantial enough to tip the Constitution's "high crimes and misdemeanors" scale.
Recall that, in 2012, attempts to convict former North Carolina Senator John Edwards on similar but far more serious campaign finance violations resulted in a failed prosecution. Edwards, while running for president in 2008, allegedly used unreported funds provided by campaign supporters and "friends" not only to buy silence but to safely house and feed Rielle Hunter-- with whom he was having an affair, and who was pregnant -- while his wife suffered from a terminal form of cancer.
A jury acquitted Edwards on one count and could not reach a unanimous verdict on the other counts in his indictment. Edwards' defense lawyers argued that the predominant purpose of the expenditures was to protect Edwards' personal reputation and his wife from public disclosure of the affair. And even though the payments undoubtedly protected Edwards' political career as well, the jury refused to convict. Trump's lawyers will make the same "mixed purpose" claim should they ever have to defend him in impeachment proceedings.
As a candidate, the law gives Trump, unlike Cohen, the right to make unlimited campaign contributions to his own campaign. And the President's legal team will assert that there was not even a need to report these payments because the purpose of the hush money was to protect his family and the Trump Organization. Yes, there was a collateral political benefit, but, as in the Edwards case, it was inconsequential and not the primary purpose of the payments. Thus, they can argue this is not even a campaign contribution with reporting requirements.
Finally, Trump's lawyers will argue that even if the president had a technical reporting obligation, this is the kind of minor offense which should be viewed as a civil rather than a criminal offense, and is permitted under federal election law. What's more, they will argue, none of the claimed offenses by Trump occurred during his presidency, further damaging any claim that impeachment is warranted under the circumstances.
There may be other criminal offenses chargeable against Trump as more is revealed about Cohen's shady dealings, but Trump's opponents shouldn't put on their dancing shoes just yet.
In pleading guilty, Cohen admitted to participation in a scheme to pay hush money payments to two women -- Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels -- with whom Trump is alleged to have had affairs. Missing, though, were the details of Trump's intentional involvement in criminal activity substantial enough to tip the Constitution's "high crimes and misdemeanors" scale.
Recall that, in 2012, attempts to convict former North Carolina Senator John Edwards on similar but far more serious campaign finance violations resulted in a failed prosecution. Edwards, while running for president in 2008, allegedly used unreported funds provided by campaign supporters and "friends" not only to buy silence but to safely house and feed Rielle Hunter-- with whom he was having an affair, and who was pregnant -- while his wife suffered from a terminal form of cancer.
A jury acquitted Edwards on one count and could not reach a unanimous verdict on the other counts in his indictment. Edwards' defense lawyers argued that the predominant purpose of the expenditures was to protect Edwards' personal reputation and his wife from public disclosure of the affair. And even though the payments undoubtedly protected Edwards' political career as well, the jury refused to convict. Trump's lawyers will make the same "mixed purpose" claim should they ever have to defend him in impeachment proceedings.
As a candidate, the law gives Trump, unlike Cohen, the right to make unlimited campaign contributions to his own campaign. And the President's legal team will assert that there was not even a need to report these payments because the purpose of the hush money was to protect his family and the Trump Organization. Yes, there was a collateral political benefit, but, as in the Edwards case, it was inconsequential and not the primary purpose of the payments. Thus, they can argue this is not even a campaign contribution with reporting requirements.
Finally, Trump's lawyers will argue that even if the president had a technical reporting obligation, this is the kind of minor offense which should be viewed as a civil rather than a criminal offense, and is permitted under federal election law. What's more, they will argue, none of the claimed offenses by Trump occurred during his presidency, further damaging any claim that impeachment is warranted under the circumstances.
There may be other criminal offenses chargeable against Trump as more is revealed about Cohen's shady dealings, but Trump's opponents shouldn't put on their dancing shoes just yet.
The payments did not come directly from Trump.
I believe that the repayment to Cohen came from the Trump Org, after Trump was President.
There would be numerous issues there.
Not to mention, that it would put the Trump Org under investigation, and prosecutors would look over all the financials, including Tax returns. CNN is being responsible, but the writing is on the wall. He's rolling down hill, and the only question left is which tree he'll hit.
...two women -- Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels -- with whom Trump is alleged to have had affairs.
cohen, as trump's representative, already admitted in court filings that trump and daniels had an affair.
Quote:
Missing, though, were the details of Trump's intentional involvement in criminal activity ...
trump took care of that during the FOX interview. he admitted to knowingly reimbursing an illegal campaign donation ( which then made it an illegal campaign loan ) and never reporting any of it.
Quote:
Recall that, in 2012, attempts to convict former North Carolina Senator John Edwards on similar but far more serious campaign finance violations resulted in a failed prosecution.
the problem with the edwards case is that the prosecution had trouble proving the pay-off was directly related to the campaign and wouldn't have happened independently regardless of the campaign.
Quote:
Edwards' defense lawyers argued that the predominant purpose of the expenditures was to protect Edwards' personal reputation and his wife from public disclosure of the affair. And even though the payments undoubtedly protected Edwards' political career as well, the jury refused to convict.
this is the important distinction
Quote:
Trump's lawyers will make the same "mixed purpose" claim should they ever have to defend him ...
yep, but here are the problems with that:
* cohen already directly admitted the pay-offs were done for the benefit of the campaign.
* the pay-off for daniels happened 10 days before the election even though trump had years of opportunity.
Quote:
As a candidate, the law gives Trump, unlike Cohen, the right to make unlimited campaign contributions to his own campaign.
correct, but he didn't. so even if he re-payed cohen using his own personal funds ( which it doesn't look like he did ) it still amounts to an illegal campaign loan.
Quote:
Finally, Trump's lawyers will argue that even if the president had a technical reporting obligation, this is the kind of minor offense ...
good luck with that. cohen's use of shell corporations concerning the pay-offs shows an intentional attempt to hide the money trail.
To be clear, the illegality is in the non-reporting, not the loan.
If he had gone to the FEC and submitted the receipts that read "$280K to silence those hookers" that would be perfectly fine, and above board. He gave the money and didn't report it. That's the fraud.
dershowitz points out that there are no campaign donation limits on trump for his own campaign and wouldn't have been illegal if he gave the hush money......... but he didn't.
dershowitz points out that it would be illegal if cohen gave the money...... which he did.
dershowitz then tries to argue that it was an "advance" but i believe the FEC would consider it an illegal campaign loan.
not to mention the fact that they never reported any of it and tried to cover their tracks.
the loan exceeds individual limits so it too was illegal. if trump had personally donated the money ( and reported it ) it would have been legal.
I think he's claimed he's done every possible version, but you're totally right. The latest one yesterday on Fox he said it was his money, so it's just non-reporting, but if it came from somewhere else, then he gets two.
... but if it came from somewhere else, then he gets two.
IIRC some of cohen's paperwork pointed to the trump organization ( not trump personally ) as the entity which re-payed the hush money ( which may open up another investigation ).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
