PDA

View Full Version : Michael Cohen sentenced to three years in prison.




uncharted
12-12-2018, 02:34 PM
Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen was sentenced Wednesday to three years in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release, during a sentencing hearing in federal court in Manhattan in which Cohen claimed he acted out of "blind loyalty" to President Trump. The judge declared he will serve time for a "smorgasbord" of fraudulent crimes.Cohen will turn himself in for his "smorgasbord" of fraudulent crimes on March 6, the judge said.


That sentencing stemmed from Cohen pleading guilty to campaign finance violations related to payments to women alleging affairs with Mr. Trump. Cohen will serve his term concurrently with a two-month sentenced imposed for lying to Congress over a proposed Trump Tower Moscow project, a charge brought by special counsel Robert Mueller. The court is fining him $50,000 each for the separate cases.


In court Wednesday, Cohen claimed "blind loyalty" to Mr. Trump led him to "take a path of darkness instead of light." Cohen described being in a "mental and physical incarceration," blaming his ties to the president as what brought him before the court today. He spoke of the president's recent attacks on him where he called him a "liar," "rat," and weak. He said the president was "correct," and that his weakness was his "blind loyalty" to the president. Cohen claimed he was "motivated by personal greed and ambition," adding that he "thrives on his access to wealthy and powerful people," and eventually became one his self.


Cohen teared up at the podium, apologizing to his family and to the American people for his actions. As he was given 36 months by the judge, Cohen's shoulders slumped forward slightly and he shook his head from left to right, apparently in disbelief.

Cohen's father was sitting in the aisle in a wheelchair, and he and his wife were crying at various points throughout the proceeding. Cohen's father, Maurice Cohen, told CBS News after the sentencing, "I'm dizzy. My world is spinning out of control."


Cohen attorney Lanny Davis said in a statement that Cohen "continues to tell the truth about Donald Trump's misconduct" — and looks forward to sharing more publicly.




More details here.
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-cohen-sentencing-in-federal-court-12-12-2018-today-live-updates/)

kpitcher
12-12-2018, 10:05 PM
National Enquirer said they paid the Playboy woman for the same reason Cohen did, to help the election. However no jailtime involved there.

This has to be making Trump sweat some that he could be charged as soon as he's no longer President. Maybe he's being so nice to the Saudi royal family so he can have a place to stay after his government job is over?

Swordsmyth
12-12-2018, 10:21 PM
National Enquirer said they paid the Playboy woman for the same reason Cohen did, to help the election. However no jailtime involved there.

This has to be making Trump sweat some that he could be charged as soon as he's no longer President. Maybe he's being so nice to the Saudi royal family so he can have a place to stay after his government job is over?
It's not a crime and the liars selling out to the left do nothing to change that.

enhanced_deficit
12-12-2018, 10:27 PM
This is so disloyal, comparing MAGA to "darkness"?

Michael Cohen gets 3 years, says Trump's 'dirty deeds' led him to 'choose darkness'
Cohen had pleaded guilty to nine federal charges of tax evasion, violating campaign finance laws, lying to banks and to Congress.
Dec. 12, 2018 / 12:05 PM EST / Updated 5:28 PM EST
By Tom Winter, Pete Williams, Hannah Rappleye, Jonathan Dienst and Dareh Gregorian
An emotional Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former lawyer and fixer, was sentenced Wednesday to 3 years behind bars for what a Manhattan federal court judge called a “veritable smorgasbord" of criminal conduct, including making secret payments to women who claimed they had affairs with Trump, lying to Congress about the president’s business dealings with Russia and failing to report millions of dollars in income.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michael-cohen-gets-3-years-cases-involving-stormy-daniels-lying-n946956



Update 1:

Hopefully fears are exaggerated and democracy will be allowed to continue its course bypassing the swamp lands.

But risks are increasing & GOP-Adelson wing's future is starting to look bit bleak. Respected neoconservative and Democrats funding billionaire turned MAGA top funder Adelson is probably not kicking himslef yet for investing so much money in MAGA's election. But if his term is cut short and net return for Adelson investment is only US embassy move in Israel and MAGA's couple of half-hearted bombing strikes in Syria, were all those millions of dollars spent on MAGA's election worth it for Sheldon "US should drop Atom Bomb on Iran" Adelson?


"The Michael Cohen Bribery Scandal Is Now a Trump Bribery Scandal" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?522334-NYM-quot-The-Michael-Cohen-Bribery-Scandal-Is-Now-a-Trump-Bribery-Scandal-quot&p=6720296&viewfull=1#post6720296)

Trump Inauguration Spending Under Criminal Investigation by Federal Prosecutors
Probe looking into whether committee misspent funds and top donors gave money in exchange for access to the administration

Dec. 13, 2018 4:27 p.m. ET
Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are investigating whether President Trump’s 2017 inaugural committee misspent some of the record $107 million it raised from donations (https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-inaugural-committee-spent-nearly-107-million-on-events-1518722022?mod=article_inline), people familiar with the matter said.
The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office, which is in its early stages, also is examining whether some of the committee’s top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions, some of the people said.
Giving money in exchange for political favors could run afoul of federal corruption laws. Diverting funds from the organization, which was registered as a nonprofit, could also violate federal law.
In April raids of Mr. Cohen’s home, office and hotel room, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents obtained a recorded conversation between Mr. Cohen and Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, a former adviser to Melania Trump, who worked on the inaugural events. In the recording, Ms. Wolkoff expressed concern about how the inaugural committee was spending money, according to a person familiar with the Cohen investigation.






Related

Tabloid Company’s Admission Shows New Peril for Trump’s Circle (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?529233-Tabloid-Company’s-Admission-Shows-New-Peril-for-Trump’s-Circle&)

Poll: If NYT reported Cohen tapes are real and made public, what will be political impact?
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?524464-If-NYT-reported-Cohen-tapes-are-real-and-made-public-what-will-be-political-impact&)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZzyq3S-4Yk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZzyq3S-4Yk

olehounddog
12-13-2018, 07:02 AM
It's always somebody else's fault, ain't it.

angelatc
12-13-2018, 08:23 AM
It's not a crime and the liars selling out to the left do nothing to change that.

It is indeed a crime to spend money to influence elections and not report it as such.

dannno
12-13-2018, 09:44 AM
It is indeed a crime to spend money to influence elections and not report it as such.

So if a politician gets botox they have to report it as a campaign contribution??

Scott Adams spelled it out quite clearly..

Ya, the botox influences the election, but maybe they wanted to get rid of wrinkles, maybe it was done for personal reasons as well.

If there is a "personal reason" element, if it is 5% personal and 95% election, even the left admits this is not a crime.

They are saying the timing makes it look like it was all about the election..

But do you think Trump wanted his family to know? Do you think he wanted his son to know?

You're saying suddenly he can't pay these women off to protect his family, because it is during an election?

The left says, "oh, the timing, it was right before the election!! It must have been about the election!"

But who is the one who made the timing possible? The women came forward then, because they are evil opportunistic bitches and just want money. It is even possible that these events never happened, but they are just paying them off because it is too close to the election to be properly vetted. Not Trump's fault.

Plus this sets a precedent that weaponizes lying bimbos during elections way too much..

Danke
12-13-2018, 10:05 AM
6282

Slave Mentality
12-13-2018, 10:31 AM
I would do 3 years for someone for several million dollars. Sounds like Cohen may be a good attorney after all.

On a side note, I have been truly enjoying the Christian-Trumphumper narratives on this:

"It's not illegal!!!"

Maybe not, but your Messiah is still a womanizing, adulterate, sleaze bag. Yeah right, he didn't know that Cohen was making these payments. Sure thing. Whatever you need to tell yourselves. Dude is a con man and people have invested so much into it that they are too ashamed to see the truth. Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

Lest we forget at RPFs - What is lawful and what is right are quite often opposites.

angelatc
12-13-2018, 10:42 AM
So if a politician gets botox they have to report it as a campaign contribution??

..

You should probably check out what Scott Adams says about analogies and how they can relate to cognitive dissonance. Check what he says about starting a sentence with the word so as well.

Campaign finance is probably the one thing i know a lot more about than Scott Adams does. If the money was spent to influence an election, it is considered a campaign expense and is subject to all the laws pertaining to such.

The case I have previously cited as a comparison is the John Edwards case. He was ultimately exonerated because his lawyers successfully argued that the money was spent primarily to conceal the affair from his wife, and the influence on the election was secondary.

dannno
12-13-2018, 10:48 AM
You should probably check out what Scott Adams says about analogies and how they can relate to cognitive dissonance. Check what he says about starting a sentence with the word so as well.

Campaign finance is probably the one thing i know a lot more about than Scott Adams does. If the money was spent to influence an election, it is considered a campaign expense and is subject to all the laws pertaining to such.

The case I have previously cited as a comparison is the John Edwards case. He was ultimately exonerated because his lawyers successfully argued that the money was spent primarily to conceal the affair from his wife, and the influence on the election was secondary.

I disagree on your use of primarily and secondary.. I believe all his lawyers did was argue that concealing the affair from his wife was A part of the reason it was done. It doesn't need to be argued which one was worth 'more'.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VoL7PQwPXc

Why didn't you answer the question I asked about botox? What about an expensive suit or a nice watch? Are those campaign expenditures?

There is nothing wrong with starting a sentence with "So" if it is a question, I'm pretty sure Scott Adams does that all the time.

You may know a lot about the nitty gritty of campaign finance, but you are way off base on this one. It is completely illogical and extremely dangerous what you are perpetuating here.

angelatc
12-13-2018, 10:58 AM
I disagree on your use of primarily and secondary.. I believe all his lawyers did was argue that concealing the affair from his wife was A part of the reason it was done. It doesn't need to be argued which one was worth more.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VoL7PQwPXc

Why didn't you answer the question I asked about botox? What about an expensive suit or a nice watch? Are those campaign expenditures?

There is nothing wrong with starting a sentence with "So" if it is a question, I'm pretty sure Scott Adams does that all the time.

You may know a lot about the nitty gritty of campaign finance, but you are way off base on this one. It is completely illogical and extremely dangerous what you are perpetuating here.

Apparently I also know a little more about Adams' methods and the tells he looks for than you do as well, then. Like I said, you might want to look into those things rather than shooting from the hip like that.

I did not answer the question about Botox because nobody is alleging that Trump did not report his Botox. As for clothing, if they are donated then the candidate has to report them. By statute, candidates are prohibited from using campaign funds to purchase clothing. Therefore, clothing purchases should not be reported as a campaign contribution.

Quoting from the manual here, since they state it pretty succinctly. This paragraph is at the end of the section that talks about food, rent, tuition payments, travel expense. There's a long list of questions that are already answered, and for items that are ambiguous;
the Commission will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the expense is one that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or duties as a federal officeholder and would be considered a personal use expense.

I am fairly confident that the commission would find that Botox would qualify as a personal use expense.

Thanks for asking. I am happy to explain what the laws are.

Brian4Liberty
12-13-2018, 11:09 AM
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. No tears for a slimy New York lawyer.

But...


6282

Yep, this was completely and totally politically motivated. One law for Trump associates, another law for Democrats. Some animals are more equal than other animals.

dannno
12-13-2018, 11:12 AM
Apparently I also know a little more about Adams' methods and the tells he looks for than you do as well, then. Like I said, you might want to look into those things rather than shooting from the hip like that.

I did not answer the question about Botox because nobody is alleging that Trump did not report his Botox. As for clothing, if they are donated then the candidate has to report them. By statute, candidates are prohibited from using campaign funds to purchase clothing. Therefore, clothing purchases should not be reported as a campaign contribution.

Quoting from the manual here, since they state it pretty succinctly.

I am fairly confident that the commission would find that Botox would qualify as a personal use expense.

Thanks for asking. I am happy to explain what the laws are.

Wow, get your head out of the clouds and back down to reality.. you are way out to lunch on this one, and all your stuff about how you think you know Scott Adams better than me is irrelevant because you still haven't wrapped your head around what is going on here..

Trump did not use campaign funds, the money was not donated.. it was his personal money. So why are you using examples of those other things?

I am asking you if a politician uses personal funds to buy a watch or a nice suit or get botox, do they have to report it as campaign spending? The answer is "NO". And it's the same for this instance.

Edwards used campaign donations to pay off his mistress, and he was acquitted.. this gives Trump a much stronger case than Edwards had, because he used personal money as opposed to stealing it from his campaign funds.

Brian4Liberty
12-13-2018, 11:14 AM
The case I have previously cited as a comparison is the John Edwards case. He was ultimately exonerated because his lawyers successfully argued that the money was spent primarily to conceal the affair from his wife, and the influence on the election was secondary.

That defense would apply double to Trump. If not for Melania, Trump would probably have taken Stormy Daniels and other “friends” on the campaign trail with him. His Playboy lifestyle was an important factor in the election, both for the people that loved him, and the people that hated him. Politically, it was a selling point. The only reason to cover up recent encounters was because of Melania.

Philhelm
12-13-2018, 11:18 AM
I think that's a longer sentence than what Carlos Danger received.

angelatc
12-13-2018, 11:32 AM
Wow, get your head out of the clouds and back down to reality.. you are way out to lunch on this one, and all your stuff about how you think you know Scott Adams better than me is irrelevant because you still haven't wrapped your head around what is going on here..

Trump did not use campaign funds, the money was not donated.. it was his personal money. So why are you using examples of those other things?

I am asking you if a politician uses personal funds to buy a watch or a nice suit or get botox, do they have to report it as campaign spending? The answer is "NO". And it's the same for this instance.

Edwards used campaign donations to pay off his mistress, and he was acquitted.. this gives Trump a much stronger case than Edwards had, because he used personal money as opposed to stealing it from his campaign funds.

You seem to be emotionally invested in this outcome. The reason i brought up John Edwards is because that's a very similar case. As a matter of logic, it does not matter where the money came from because a candidate can make unlimited donations to the campaign.

I don't disagree that the whole thing is ridiculous, but I am not going to assume any outcome at this point. I don't have all the evidence. Neither do you.

angelatc
12-13-2018, 11:40 AM
That defense would apply double to Trump. If not for Melania, Trump would probably have taken Stormy Daniels and other “friends” on the campaign trail with him. His Playboy lifestyle was an important factor in the election, both for the people that loved him, and the people that hated him. Politically, it was a selling point. The only reason to cover up recent encounters was because of Melania.

I do not want to trigger Dannno, but I think we can also make a case that Melania knew he was a philanderer before they married, though. It would be helpful to find a history of hush-money payments that pre-dated the campaign.

angelatc
12-13-2018, 11:45 AM
I think that's a longer sentence than what Carlos Danger received.


Having dealt with the FEC, they're pretty easy to get along with. They do require compliance to the laws but they never seem hostile when I've dealt with them.

I would guess they would call this a personal expense and move on. But again, we do not have all the evidence. And I seem to recall that Cohen recorded his meetings with Trump.

And I am not a lawyer but i think that attorney-client privilege does not apply when they are colluding to commit a crime.

That's quite a conundrum.

dannno
12-13-2018, 11:51 AM
You seem to be emotionally invested in this outcome. The reason i brought up John Edwards is because that's a very similar case. As a matter of logic, it does not matter where the money came from because a candidate can make unlimited donations to the campaign.

I don't disagree that the whole thing is ridiculous, but I am not going to assume any outcome at this point. I don't have all the evidence. Neither do you.

I'm not going to assume the outcome because the political and legal system is corrupt, I'm just talking about what is right.

John Edwards was ACQUITTED of campaign finance violations.. he was charged with embezzling the campaign money and using it for personal reasons.. paying off a mistress. If he used the money to pay off the mistress and that was considered a campaign contribution, then he wouldn't have gotten in trouble for that.. he would have gotten in trouble for campaign finance violations, not reporting the spending..

dannno
12-13-2018, 11:54 AM
I do not want to trigger Dannno, but I think we can also make a case that Melania knew he was a philanderer before they married, though.

That is a terrible argument.. just because Melania knows it was probably happening, doesn't mean she wanted it shoved in her face by the news 24/7.. huge difference.

Brian4Liberty
12-13-2018, 11:54 AM
I do not want to trigger Dannno, but I think we can also make a case that Melania knew he was a philanderer before they married, though. It would be helpful to find a history of hush-money payments that pre-dated the campaign.

Then you have the chicken or the egg dilemma. What came first, a political campaign or the threats? It could be reasonably hypothesized that the motivation of some of the women to come out was political, yet the motivation of Trump would have always been to keep it from his wife, political campaign or not. Thus the political aspect is purely on the women, not Trump. You could probably find past payouts if you looked hard enough, just less motivation for the accusers when there is no political campaign.

angelatc
12-13-2018, 11:56 AM
Then you have the chicken or the egg dilemma. What came first, a political campaign or the threats? It could be reasonably hypothesized that the motivation of some of the women to come out was political, yet the motivation of Trump would have always been to keep it from his wife, political campaign or not. Thus the political aspect is purely on the women, not Trump. You could probably find past payouts if you looked hard enough, just less motivation for the accusers when there is no political campaign.

I think the biggest point to be made here is that this has absolutely nothing to do with Russia, which is what Mueller is supposed to be investigating.

angelatc
12-13-2018, 12:04 PM
I'm not going to assume the outcome because the political and legal system is corrupt, I'm just talking about what is right.

John Edwards was ACQUITTED of campaign finance violations.. he was charged with embezzling the campaign money and using it for personal reasons.. paying off a mistress. If he used the money to pay off the mistress and that was considered a campaign contribution, then he wouldn't have gotten in trouble for that.. he would have gotten in trouble for campaign finance violations, not reporting the spending..

Edwards was aquitted on one count, the jury hung on the other 5 counts. And I'm not clear as to why you think that Edwards was using campaign money. He was taking money from 2 wealthy donors and funneling it to Ms Hunter.

dannno
12-13-2018, 12:05 PM
Edwards was aquitted on one count, the jury hung on the other 5 counts. And I'm not clear as to why you think that Edwards was using campaign money. He was taking money from 2 wealthy donors and funneling it to Ms Hunter.

You just answered your own question, lol...

angelatc
12-13-2018, 12:21 PM
You just answered your own question, lol...

I do not have questions about the Edwards case. (Sadly, neither do you.) Both parties had relationships with Edwards that predated the campaign.

I am just patiently trying to explain why the Edwards scenario bears some similarities to the Trump scenario. In the Edwards case, the alleged violations were multi-pronged. If Trump used his own money, then there's no excessive contribution violation, which was alleged to have been triggered in the Edwards case when he accepted the money (via a third party.)

But the questions about the expenditures is the same:

Were the donations for the purpose of hiding the affair from his family or was the sole purpose to influence the campaign. Neither of us know what is on the Cohen recordings, so neither of us know the answer to that question.

dannno
12-13-2018, 12:29 PM
I do not have questions about the Edwards case.

This statement makes no sense:


And I'm not clear as to why you think that Edwards was using campaign money. He was taking money from 2 wealthy donors and funneling it to Ms Hunter.You are saying that campaign donors gave him the money to make the payoff, but he didn't use campaign money. Sorry, that doesn't make any sense.

You are one of those people who make a lot of sense sometimes, and then don't make any sense other times.. this thread is one of those 'other' times.

angelatc
12-13-2018, 12:41 PM
This statement makes no sense:

You are saying that campaign donors gave him the money to make the payoff, but he didn't use campaign money. Sorry, that doesn't make any sense.

You are one of those people who make a lot of sense sometimes, and then don't make any sense other times.. this thread is one of those 'other' times.

Ah. I see where I lost you. The money was donated but not to the campaign. It never went through the campaign coffers, so it was never campaign money, so he was never charged with embezzling campaign funds for personal gain.

He was charged with failing to report the money as campaign donations, and also failing to report the expenditures. He was acquitted on one charge and the jury hung on the other counts. So at this phase, the money was never campaign money.

Swordsmyth
12-13-2018, 03:05 PM
It is indeed a crime to spend money to influence elections and not report it as such.
But that isn't what he did.

Swordsmyth
12-13-2018, 03:08 PM
I would do 3 years for someone for several million dollars. Sounds like Cohen may be a good attorney after all.

On a side note, I have been truly enjoying the Christian-Trumphumper narratives on this:

"It's not illegal!!!"

Maybe not, but your Messiah is still a womanizing, adulterate, sleaze bag. Yeah right, he didn't know that Cohen was making these payments. Sure thing. Whatever you need to tell yourselves. Dude is a con man and people have invested so much into it that they are too ashamed to see the truth. Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

Lest we forget at RPFs - What is lawful and what is right are quite often opposites.
Nobody ever claimed he was a saint, he is just better for our liberty than the alternative after he won the primary.

oyarde
12-13-2018, 03:08 PM
It is indeed a crime to spend money to influence elections and not report it as such.

I think what got Cohen all this trouble was all the unreported income . He evidently needed help with his books .

oyarde
12-13-2018, 03:12 PM
I think that's a longer sentence than what Carlos Danger received.

I expect Carlos to one day again be an elected official .

devil21
12-13-2018, 03:20 PM
Why didn't you answer the question I asked about botox? What about an expensive suit or a nice watch? Are those campaign expenditures?

Generally not, though a candidate usually gets an opportunity to justify an expense if the bill was paid from a campaign account. Such expenses from campaign committee funds are very much a gray area of campaign finance that's never really been definitively addressed. The expensive suit would get a lot more leeway as a campaign expense than an expensive watch would. If there's a pattern of questionable use of funds, as opposed to a one-off instance, then it's much harder to justify such expenses.

dannno
12-13-2018, 03:38 PM
Generally not, though a candidate usually gets an opportunity to justify an expense if the bill was paid from a campaign account. Such expenses from campaign committee funds are very much a gray area of campaign finance that's never really been definitively addressed. The expensive suit would get a lot more leeway as a campaign expense than an expensive watch would. If there's a pattern of questionable use of funds, as opposed to a one-off instance, then it's much harder to justify such expenses.

You're completely missing the point.... we aren't talking about spending campaign money, we are talking about personal funds..

I have yet to hear angela or anybody for that matter admit that they believe that if a politician gets botox, teeth whitening, a nice suit or a nice watch with their personal money during a campaign, that they should go to jail because they didn't report them all as campaign expenditures... even though the primary purpose for buying them is to help the campaign.





.............
As a side issue, I'm pretty sure most libertarians recognize political speech as speech and are mostly or completely against campaign finance laws. Of course we are not operating in a libertarian society, so that is sort of beside the point, but it hasn't been brought up lately.

dannno
12-13-2018, 03:42 PM
I would do 3 years for someone for several million dollars. Sounds like Cohen may be a good attorney after all.

On a side note, I have been truly enjoying the Christian-Trumphumper narratives on this:

"It's not illegal!!!"

Maybe not, but your Messiah is still a womanizing, adulterate, sleaze bag. Yeah right, he didn't know that Cohen was making these payments. Sure thing. Whatever you need to tell yourselves. Dude is a con man and people have invested so much into it that they are too ashamed to see the truth. Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

Lest we forget at RPFs - What is lawful and what is right are quite often opposites.

LOL, ya, the satan worshiping pedophiles should be placed back into power .... because Trump cheated on his wife..

angelatc
12-13-2018, 05:03 PM
But that isn't what he did.

We have not heard the recordings, so we don't know what he did or said.

Anti Globalist
12-13-2018, 05:06 PM
New York lawyers are the hounds of duty.

angelatc
12-13-2018, 05:12 PM
I have yet to hear angela or anybody for that matter admit that they believe that if a politician gets botox, teeth whitening, a nice suit or a nice watch with their personal money during a campaign, that they should go to jail because they didn't report them all as campaign expenditures... even though the primary purpose for buying them is to help the campaign.





I'd abolish all the spending restrictions. But you should stop using Adams' Botox and clothing examples, because the law (which exists whether or not we agree with it) clearly addresses those issues. This isn't that.

This also is WHY analogies suck.

angelatc
12-13-2018, 06:00 PM
Generally not, though a candidate usually gets an opportunity to justify an expense if the bill was paid from a campaign account. Such expenses from campaign committee funds are very much a gray area of campaign finance that's never really been definitively addressed. The expensive suit would get a lot more leeway as a campaign expense than an expensive watch would. If there's a pattern of questionable use of funds, as opposed to a one-off instance, then it's much harder to justify such expenses.

Nope. You can't use campaign funds to buy clothing unless we're talking about t-shirts for the staff and such. You can't buy food unless it's a dinner for a fundraiser or staff. You can't buy jewelry unless it's a gift to a non-family member. They have all been definitively addressed, both by statute and by precedent.

Swordsmyth
12-13-2018, 06:06 PM
Former FEC Commissioner Hans Von Spakovsky debunked the argument that President Donald Trump broke campaign finance laws by paying women he allegedly had affairs with prior to becoming president.
The president’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was sentenced to three years in jail (https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/12/michael-cohen-prison-sentence/) on Wednesday for a litany of crimes, including making an illegal campaign contribution amounting to $130,000 to Stormy Daniels (https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/11/judge-order-stormy-daniels-pay-trump/), who alleges she slept with Trump in 2006, so she would keep quiet about the affair.
Despite the guilty plea, Spakovsky said that Trump should not be worried because it would have to be a “campaign-related expense” for the contribution break any campaign finance laws.

More at: https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/12/coven-trump-campaign-finance-spakovsky/

devil21
12-13-2018, 06:50 PM
You're completely missing the point.... we aren't talking about spending campaign money, we are talking about personal funds..

I have yet to hear angela or anybody for that matter admit that they believe that if a politician gets botox, teeth whitening, a nice suit or a nice watch with their personal money during a campaign, that they should go to jail because they didn't report them all as campaign expenditures... even though the primary purpose for buying them is to help the campaign.





.............
As a side issue, I'm pretty sure most libertarians recognize political speech as speech and are mostly or completely against campaign finance laws. Of course we are not operating in a libertarian society, so that is sort of beside the point, but it hasn't been brought up lately.

If a candidate spends personal funds for something that is used as part of a campaign then it is considered an "in kind" contribution by the candidate and is to be reported on campaign finance reports as an in kind contribution. Just because a candidate or someone else spends on behalf of a candidate's campaign, but not directly donated into and spend out of a campaign committee account, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be reported.

eta: It sounds like the center of the issue is whether the payoff can be reasonably construed to be campaign-related or not. If yes, then any in kind contribution would also be subject to donation limit amounts. Obviously, $130k is way above the limit for someone other than the candidate himself. I don't know if FEC rules limit the amount a candidate can in kind contribute/spend but I doubt it, therefore if Trump made the pay-off himself from his own personal funds and reported it as an in kind contribution then he'd likely be fully clear.


Nope. You can't use campaign funds to buy clothing unless we're talking about t-shirts for the staff and such. You can't buy food unless it's a dinner for a fundraiser or staff. You can't buy jewelry unless it's a gift to a non-family member. They have all been definitively addressed, both by statute and by precedent.

FEC may be more specific about such purchases and sounds like you'd know better than I would. I have experience with state campaigns and such purchases may or may not be permitted, depending on circumstances. If a suit is required for a campaign event then purchasing a suit from campaign funds is permitted, for example. Buying a new suit every few weeks or outside of campaign season but with campaign committee funds would be not permitted.

Swordsmyth
12-13-2018, 06:54 PM
If a candidate spends personal funds for something that is used as part of a campaign then it is considered an "in kind" contribution by the candidate and is to be reported on campaign finance reports as an in kind contribution. Just because a candidate or someone else spends on behalf of a candidate's campaign, but not directly donated into and spend out of a campaign committee account, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be reported.
They have to prove it was for the campaign and they can't do that.

r3volution 3.0
12-13-2018, 06:59 PM
Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap for $800/hour..

I don't often quote Mz. Linzi, but her comment that "any day your lawyer goes to prison is a bad day (or something to that effect)" was apt.

devil21
12-13-2018, 07:15 PM
They have to prove it was for the campaign and they can't do that.

I think under any "reasonableness" standard it would be determined to be campaign-related but I don't know what the standard for FEC stuff is.

Swordsmyth
12-13-2018, 07:18 PM
I think under any "reasonableness" standard it would be determined to be campaign-related but I don't know what the standard for FEC stuff is.
Under any "reasonableness" standard it isn't campaign related, it is related to his brand and his family relations, the campaign just made it more likely that he would need to protect both.

devil21
12-13-2018, 07:28 PM
Under any "reasonableness" standard it isn't campaign related, it is related to his brand and his family relations, the campaign just made it more likely that he would need to protect both.

I admit to not tying myself up in the daily Trump Reality Show so my understanding of the situation isn't thorough. Having said that....

If I were prosecuting, the questions would be simple. How long ago did Trump sleep with Daniels, et al? If years ago then why the payoff after he became a candidate, instead of before he became a candidate?

If protecting his family from finding out was the goal, the payoff would have been made long before any candidacy. Trump has always been a public figure and could have been outed at any time by various sources. The timing of the payoff is where a reasonable person would conclude that it was a campaign related payoff.

enhanced_deficit
12-13-2018, 07:29 PM
Also troubling is the fact that "Drain the Swamp" campaign was supposed to be a MAGA thing; MAGA and his widely respected team members were not supposed to be subjects of such an operation. DTS is being turned on its head.
I'm all for ending corruption in politics but this seems bit too ironic and even drastic.

devil21
12-13-2018, 07:51 PM
FWIW, Judge Nap seems to think Trump committed a felony.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/421083-foxs-napolitano-we-learned-today-that-prosecutors-have-evidence-trump


Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano said the American public "learned" on Wednesday that federal prosecutors have evidence President Trump committed a crime.

"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." moreifclick

Influenza
12-13-2018, 08:16 PM
But that isn't what he did.
Not sure which is more delusional, your apparent belief in this ridiculous statement or your belief in the existence of ancient egyptian golden bible plates

Swordsmyth
12-13-2018, 08:19 PM
FWIW, Judge Nap seems to think Trump committed a felony.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/421083-foxs-napolitano-we-learned-today-that-prosecutors-have-evidence-trump

Judge Swamp has TDS.

Swordsmyth
12-13-2018, 08:21 PM
Not sure which is more delusional, your apparent belief in this ridiculous statement or your belief in the existence of ancient egyptian golden bible plates
Let me know when you have an actual argument.

Influenza
12-13-2018, 08:27 PM
Under any "reasonableness" standard it isn't campaign related, it is related to his brand and his family relations, the campaign just made it more likely that he would need to protect both.

Your own stupidly generous theory already admitted that it's campaign related

Swordsmyth
12-13-2018, 08:33 PM
Your own stupidly generous theory already admitted that it's campaign related
No, it didn't, campaign related means that its purpose is to help him get elected, the purpose was to protect his brand and his familial relations during a time when they would be most likely to be damaged.

angelatc
12-13-2018, 11:07 PM
I don't know if FEC rules limit the amount a candidate can in kind contribute/spend but I doubt it, therefore if Trump made the pay-off himself from his own personal funds and reported it as an in kind contribution then he'd likely be fully clear.


That ol' freedom lover John McCain tried to limit that, but SCOTUS nixxed it. A candidate can spend unlimited amounts of his/her own money on the campaign.

Since you're geeky like me, note that McCain kept Senate filers from electronically filing. All filings had to go through the Senate first, via hard copy, then to the FEC As soon as he was in the ground, they finally changed the law so that Senate reports didn't have to be submitted via hard copy. But not before.

angelatc
12-13-2018, 11:10 PM
They have to prove it was for the campaign and they can't do that.

How do you know they can't do that? Have you heard the tapes?

Brian4Liberty
12-13-2018, 11:30 PM
I admit to not tying myself up in the daily Trump Reality Show so my understanding of the situation isn't thorough. Having said that...

If I were prosecuting, the questions would be simple. How long ago did Trump sleep with Daniels, et al? If years ago then why the payoff after he became a candidate, instead of before he became a candidate?

If protecting his family from finding out was the goal, the payoff would have been made long before any candidacy. Trump has always been a public figure and could have been outed at any time by various sources. The timing of the payoff is where a reasonable person would conclude that it was a campaign related payoff.

As I was getting at below, it is entirely reasonable and expected that the motivation of the accuser will be political, and timed to coincide with the important event. Kavanaugh and Blasey-Ford is another example. The “victims” come out when they are encouraged, and become taken by the hysteria and frenzy.

There is no reason to pay someone off if they have not threatened (black mailed) yet.


Then you have the chicken or the egg dilemma. What came first, a political campaign or the threats? It could be reasonably hypothesized that the motivation of some of the women to come out was political, yet the motivation of Trump would have always been to keep it from his wife, political campaign or not. Thus the political aspect is purely on the women, not Trump. You could probably find past payouts if you looked hard enough, just less motivation for the accusers when there is no political campaign.

Swordsmyth
12-13-2018, 11:42 PM
How do you know they can't do that? Have you heard the tapes?
Because it is exceedingly unlikely that Trump said anything that would prove that it was meant to help the campaign as opposed to preserving his image.

devil21
12-14-2018, 01:45 AM
Judge Swamp has TDS.
....
Because it is exceedingly unlikely that Trump said anything that would prove that it was meant to help the campaign as opposed to preserving his image.

That's great and all but doesn't address what he's saying regarding court rules. Assuming prosecutors are following court rules then according to Nap, yes they do have evidence.

It's topics like these that reinforce to me that Trump was told to run for President by his superiors. He has so many skeletons in the closet and surely he knew these people would be coming out of the woodwork yet still ran for the highest profile office in the land? Then when they start coming out of the woodwork, people want to claim the hush payments weren't campaign related. If you don't want your brand damaged or family compromised then you don't voluntarily run for an office that will potentially expose that history to the entire country.

Swordsmyth
12-14-2018, 01:52 AM
That's great and all but doesn't address what he's saying regarding court rules. Assuming prosecutors are following court rules then according to Nap, yes they do have evidence.
It's absolutely laughable to think that they are following ANY rules as part of the witch hunt.


It's topics like these that reinforce to me that Trump was told to run for President by his superiors. He has so many skeletons in the closet and surely he knew these people would be coming out of the woodwork yet still ran for the highest profile office in the land? Then when they start coming out of the woodwork, people want to claim the hush payments weren't campaign related. If you don't want your brand damaged or family compromised then you don't voluntarily run for an office that will potentially expose that history to the entire country.
The law and the precedent is on Trump's side, if he has private reasons for the payments made with his own money then it doesn't matter if they might also affect the campaign.

devil21
12-14-2018, 02:09 AM
It's absolutely laughable to think that they are following ANY rules as part of the witch hunt.

The law and the precedent is on Trump's side, if he has private reasons for the payments made with his own money then it doesn't matter if they might also affect the campaign.

I guess we will see soon enough.

Slave Mentality
12-14-2018, 08:02 AM
LOL, ya, the satan worshiping pedophiles should be placed back into power .... because Trump cheated on his wife..

Show me where I said this. When did I say anything about "satan worshipping pedophiles"? It is bad practice to put words into the mouths of others and quite weak. Anyway, I think it's extremely ridiculous that you believe the (R) team has any fewer satan worshiping pedophiles that the (D) team. As if some magical party affiliation insulates oneself from the depravity of humanity.

I don't have TDS, as I have never thought highly of ANY politician. I have even questioned myself on Ron Paul, since he was a politician after all. He was about as close as I have gotten to supporting any of these charlatans. I guess what I am trying to say here is that you should use logic rather than emotions, lest you come off as an emotional equivalent of the very soy-driven opposites you claim to despise. Reverse TDS is just as knarly as TDS, bro.

Have a great day!

Influenza
12-14-2018, 08:36 AM
Show me where I said this. When did I say anything about "satan worshipping pedophiles"? It is bad practice to put words into the mouths of others and quite weak. Anyway, I think it's extremely ridiculous that you believe the (R) team has any fewer satan worshiping pedophiles that the (D) team. As if some magical party affiliation insulates oneself from the depravity of humanity.

I don't have TDS, as I have never thought highly of ANY politician. I have even questioned myself on Ron Paul, since he was a politician after all. He was about as close as I have gotten to supporting any of these charlatans. I guess what I am trying to say here is that you should use logic rather than emotions, lest you come off as an emotional equivalent of the very soy-driven opposites you claim to despise. Reverse TDS is just as knarly as TDS, bro.

Have a great day!

dannno is embarrassingly low IQ, he is capable of nothing more than logical fallacies

dannno
12-14-2018, 09:11 AM
Anyway, I think it's extremely ridiculous that you believe the (R) team has any fewer satan worshiping pedophiles that the (D) team.

LOL, are you serious??? There are tons of Satan Worshipping pedos on both sides, have you not seen The Dark Secrets of Bohemian Grove??

Of course there are plenty of NeverTrumpers and secret NeverTrumpers (aka Satanic Pedos) in the Republican Party.

They are also on CNN and MSNBC, attacking Trump on a daily basis. Some just recently switched sides. Have you been under a rock?

dannno
12-14-2018, 09:12 AM
I have even questioned myself on Ron Paul

Shocking... :rolleyes:

dannno
12-14-2018, 09:15 AM
dannno is embarrassingly low IQ, he is capable of nothing more than logical fallacies

What a thoughtful comment.

Slave Mentality
12-14-2018, 09:30 AM
LOL, are you serious??? There are tons of Satan Worshipping pedos on both sides, have you not seen The Dark Secrets of Bohemian Grove??

Of course there are plenty of NeverTrumpers and secret NeverTrumpers (aka Satanic Pedos) in the Republican Party.

They are also on CNN and MSNBC, attacking Trump on a daily basis. Some just recently switched sides. Have you been under a rock?


I don't even know where you are going with this shit. I pretty plainly said they are everywhere, even Trump supporters. Also, I would be way better off living under a rock than playing partisan politics kissy face bullshit.


Shocking... :rolleyes:


Oh no, he doesn't just blindly follow people! Oh, no!


SMMFH

Influenza
12-14-2018, 10:01 AM
What a thoughtful comment.

you just got finished posting this blatant strawman you absolute retard


LOL, ya, the satan worshiping pedophiles should be placed back into power .... because Trump cheated on his wife..

dannno
12-14-2018, 10:59 AM
I don't even know where you are going with this shit. I pretty plainly said they are everywhere, even Trump supporters. Also, I would be way better off living under a rock than playing partisan politics kissy face bullshit.

The satanic pedos are not Trump supporters.. they may be pretending to support Trump, they might even be in his cabinet.. but they are working against him.







Oh no, he doesn't just blindly follow people! Oh, no!


SMMFH

Blindly?? What does that even mean?

dannno
12-14-2018, 11:01 AM
you just got finished posting this blatant strawman you absolute retard

If Trump is taken out of power, the satan worshipping pedophiles are going to get back into power. It is preferable to keep Trump in power, who the satanic pedophiles hate. That is not a strawman, it's called the most likely scenario.

Sure, there is a chance if they take Trump out of power that the people could rise up and choose someone better like Rand, but that is highly unlikely. The people taking out Trump hate the idea of Rand getting into power even more than Trump.

So go ahead, team up with the satanic pedophiles and help them take out Trump.. if you think that is best, let's see how far it gets us.

angelatc
12-14-2018, 11:23 AM
dannno is embarrassingly low IQ, he is capable of nothing more than logical fallacies

So much irony in this post....

Influenza
12-14-2018, 11:46 AM
If Trump is taken out of power, the satan worshipping pedophiles are going to get back into power. It is preferable to keep Trump in power, who the satanic pedophiles hate. That is not a strawman, it's called the most likely scenario.

Sure, there is a chance if they take Trump out of power that the people could rise up and choose someone better like Rand, but that is highly unlikely. The people taking out Trump hate the idea of Rand getting into power even more than Trump.

So go ahead, team up with the satanic pedophiles and help them take out Trump.. if you think that is best, let's see how far it gets us.

https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/portrait-of-american-financier-jeffrey-epstein-and-real-estate-as-picture-id681946576

You are worried so much about pedophiles, yet you are ignoring the "most likely scenario" that Trump is also one of them, lmfao

Influenza
12-14-2018, 11:47 AM
So much irony in this post....
hi angie hope ur on ur meds now

dannno
12-14-2018, 11:59 AM
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/portrait-of-american-financier-jeffrey-epstein-and-real-estate-as-picture-id681946576

You are worried so much about pedophiles, yet you are ignoring the "most likely scenario" that Trump is also one of them, lmfao

Wrong. Trump likes women who are at least 18-20 years old, and there is no evidence I have seen to the contrary.

The man pictured with him, Jeffrey Epstein, likes girls in the 14-20 range, possibly younger. Epstein was a player type, and so was Trump, and their age preferences for women overlapped by a couple of years. But Trump made it pretty clear when he said that Epstein likes younger girls that while they overlap, they do not have the same age preference range.

While I admit I could be wrong, there is no evidence you have provided to the contrary..

dude58677
12-14-2018, 12:00 PM
hi angie hope ur on ur meds now

You might not like Donald Trump him winning as a nonpolitician can open up to a lot of libertarians running for President and winning. In 2024, we can have a whole bunch of libertarians running for President regardless of lack of political experience rather than solely relying on Rand Paul or Ron Paul.

Influenza
12-14-2018, 12:17 PM
Wrong. Trump likes women who are at least 18-20 years old, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

The man pictured with him, Jeffrey Epstein, likes girls in the 14-20 range, possibly younger. But he was a player type, and so was Trump, and their age preferences for women overlapped by a couple of years. But Trump made it pretty clear when he said that he likes younger girls that while they overlap, they do not have the same age preference range.

While I admit I could be wrong, there is no evidence you have provided to the contrary..

Trump said of Epstein in 2002: "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."

Yep, Trump thought a guy who had sex with dozens of young teenagers, a guy who he had known for 15+ years, a guy who he praised for liking young "women (14 year olds forced into prostitution)," was "terrific." If Trump did not engage in such pedophilia himself, it can be said, with absolute, 100% certainty, that he was well aware of it. That alone is worthy of the gallows of course, but I suppose it's not enough "evidence" for you, because you are only skeptical of such claims when they are made against someone you like. But for people you don't like? People who lean slightly left? You claim they are satan worshipping pedophiles, with even less evidence. Grow a brain you pathetic TIS victim

EBounding
12-14-2018, 12:27 PM
1072929078754201600

dannno
12-14-2018, 12:35 PM
Trump said of Epstein in 2002: "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."

Yep, Trump thought a guy who had sex with dozens of young teenagers, a guy who he had known for 15+ years, a guy who he praised for liking young "women (14 year olds forced into prostitution)," was "terrific." If Trump did not engage in such pedophilia himself, it can be said, with absolute, 100% certainty, that he was well aware of it. That alone is worthy of the gallows of course, but I suppose it's not enough "evidence" for you, because you are only skeptical of such claims when they are made against someone you like. But for people you don't like? People who lean slightly left? You claim they are satan worshipping pedophiles, with even less evidence. Grow a brain you pathetic TIS victim


There are a lot of assumptions in there..

Pretty sure Trump knew he liked under age girls, as in, under 18, but hey, there are a lot of states where the age of consent is 16 or younger, and some countries where it is 14 or younger.

As far as whether he knew about forcing 14 year old prostitutes into having sex, I don't think there is any evidence of that.

Philhelm
12-14-2018, 03:00 PM
I expect Carlos to one day again be an elected official .

Fucking guaranteed.

angelatc
12-14-2018, 05:59 PM
Botox.

You know I hate the Botox analogy. Here's a better one you can use:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-cohen-sentencing-campaign-finance-law/?fbclid=IwAR14u4boL0cHzbDYiaQTadvBdVEeDfVed7zH2be8 RpGiSm61n-HFGesgNOo


To use a more pertinent example, imagine a wealthy entrepreneur who decides to run for office. Like many men and women with substantial business activities, at any one time there are likely several lawsuits pending against him personally, or against those various businesses. The candidate calls in his company attorney: “I want all outstanding lawsuits against our various enterprises settled.” His lawyer protests that the suits are without merit — the company should clearly win at trial, and he should protect his reputation of not settling meritless lawsuits. “I agree that these suits lack merit,” says our candidate, “but I don’t want them as a distraction during the campaign, and I don’t want to take the risk that the papers will use them to portray me as a heartless tycoon. Get them settled.”



Here's another paragraph I found very interesting:


Further clinching the case, in writing its implementing regulations for the statute, the Federal Election Commission specifically rejected a proposal that an expense could be considered a campaign expenditure if it were merely “primarily related to the candidate’s campaign.” This was done specifically to prevent candidates from claiming that things that benefitted them personally were done because they would also benefit the campaign. And with that in mind, it is worth noting Mr. Cohen’s sentencing statement, in which he writes that he “felt obligated to assist [Trump], on [Trump’s] instruction, to attempt to prevent Woman-1 and Woman-2 from disseminating narratives that would adversely affect the Campaign and cause personal embarrassment to Client-1 and his family.” (Emphasis in original.)

angelatc
12-14-2018, 06:01 PM
hi angie hope ur on ur meds now

THat link you gave said that if someone with antisocial disorder (or wahtever it was) was bothering you, you should get help.

dannno
12-14-2018, 06:03 PM
You know I hate the Botox analogy. Here's a better one you can use:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/michael-cohen-sentencing-campaign-finance-law/?fbclid=IwAR14u4boL0cHzbDYiaQTadvBdVEeDfVed7zH2be8 RpGiSm61n-HFGesgNOo



Here's another paragraph I found very interesting:

So he instructed Cohen to do it, in large part because it would cause embarrassment to himself and his family. Seems like an open and shut case.

The botox analogy is good because it makes the candidate look younger and can have a definite influence on helping them win.. it costs a pretty substantial amount of money, yet is not considered a campaign expense.. because there are personal reasons for doing it.

In your example about settling the lawsuit, it is ALL about settling it for the campaign's sake. There is no personal reason to settle the cases.

angelatc
12-14-2018, 07:06 PM
So he instructed Cohen to do it, in large part because it would cause embarrassment to himself and his family. Seems like an open and shut case. Yes, but that's a quote that gives me evidence I didn't have before.


The botox analogy is good because it makes the candidate look younger and can have a definite influence on helping them win.. it costs a pretty substantial amount of money, yet is not considered a campaign expense.. because there are personal reasons for doing it.

The Botox analogy is absolutely not good in any way shape of form because it's already considered a personal expense. The segue to "what about clothes and wristwatches!!!" just indicates that the person making the analogy knows nothing about campaign law, and therefore isn't a credible source for an opinion.


In your example about settling the lawsuit, it is ALL about settling it for the campaign's sake. There is no personal reason to settle the cases.

Not my example. But that's pretty what exactly Trump did.

Swordsmyth
12-14-2018, 07:22 PM
Not my example. But that's pretty what exactly Trump did.
Except Trump would have settled either way, the election just made the threat to his business interests and his family relations greater, the example says that the lawsuits are obviously not the kind you would settle other than to clean up before an election.

fcreature
12-14-2018, 07:26 PM
I'm not a Trump guy but I also don't suffer from TDS. Trump did nothing wrong here. He used his own money for a personal expense.

And even if this were a violation of campaign finance (its not), this would be yet another case of unequal application of the law. If it were anyone else they would be fined. You know it, I know it, we all know it.

Also, Campaign Finance laws are an infringement upon our freedom of speech and should be objectionable to everyone here.

enhanced_deficit
12-15-2018, 12:22 PM
While true that MAGA regime facing serious issues ahead, NYDN OpEd headlines like this are bit overly dramatic.
Drudge headlines today are also not helpful, used to think he was pro MAGA.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-trump-is-toast-20181214-story.html

devil21
12-17-2018, 05:48 PM
Judge Nap is not letting up on Trump.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-napolitano-says-trump-is-an-unindicted-co-conspirator-ample-evidence-to-indict-potus/


“So you’re saying he’s an unindicted co-conspirator?” Smith asked.

“Yes,” Napolitano answered. “There’s ample evidence – this doesn’t require too much analysis – to indict the president, the question is do they want to do it. The DOJ has three opinions in this: two say you can’t indict a sitting president, one says you can, but all three address the problem of ‘what do you do when the statute of limitations is about to expire?’ All three agree in that case you indict in secret, keep it sealed and release it the day he gets out of office.”

I'm sure Shillsmyth will be along momentarily to tell us how Judge Nap is the swamp and Trump is the innocent victim in all this. :rolleyes:

Swordsmyth
12-17-2018, 05:51 PM
Judge Nap is not letting up on Trump.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fox-news-napolitano-says-trump-is-an-unindicted-co-conspirator-ample-evidence-to-indict-potus/



I'm sure Shillsmyth will be along momentarily to tell us how Judge Nap is the swamp and Trump is the innocent victim in all this. :rolleyes:
Judge Swamp has TDS and so do you.

Trump may have done many things wrong but he didn't anything wrong in this case.

The law and the precedent is on his side.

devil21
12-17-2018, 05:54 PM
Judge Swamp has TDS and so do you.

Trump may have done many things wrong but he didn't anything wrong in this case.

The law and the precedent is on his side.

Pretty much all libertarians should have TDS. Thanks for being predictable though! It's like conjuring up spirits at will, posting anything that's not flattering about Trump. POOF! There's SS magically appearing every time.

And let's not get carried away, ok? It's possible that Trump didn't break the law. Saying he didn't do anything wrong is another story entirely.

Firestarter
12-18-2018, 09:04 AM
Judge Nap is not letting up on Trump. But I thought that the whole establishment is against Trump, like Zionist Breitbart and CIA asset Alex Jones have been telling us for years?!?
Of course a mere bribe to a Playboy bunny is only a "small" scandal compared to the "swamp" that surrounds Trump.
You won't be hearing this story from Infowars or Zerohedge...


For some reason the “independent” Wikipedia deleted its page on Richard Griffiths…
Griffiths, with Sara Bronfman and Basit Igtet, became involved in the Arab Spring, particularly in Libya. He was working in setting up meetings between the Lybian National Transitional Council (NTC) with Latin American nations. On 14 June 2011, Panama became the 14th nation worldwide to recognise the NTC as "the legitimate representative of the Libyan people.
Griffiths joined lobby, law firm Squire Patton Boggs as a senior advisor.

In April 2017, Squire Patton Boggs announced that Trump’s long-time lawyer, Michael Cohen, was paid a $500,000 annual “alliance fee” plus commissions and given a room at its New York office.
Squire announced that the “alliance” had ended after last April FBI agents raided Michael Cohen’s room in New York.

Cohen brought in 5 clients. The only one named is the U.S. Immigration Fund, that paid Squire $370,000 in lobbying fees last year. U.S. Immigration Fund has close ties to Kushner Cos. of Jared Kushner’s family.
U.S. Immigration Fund CEO Nicholas Mastroianni donated $150,000 in support of Trump’s re-election. Mastroianni’s family also gave $100,000 to Trump’s inauguration fund.

In 2017, U.S. Immigration Fund organised a trip to China for several Kushner Cos. officials, including Jared’s sister Nicole Meyer, to lure potential investors for towers in Jersey City, N.J. Meyer pitched investors on participating in EB-5, which provides permanent US visas to immigrants who invest $500,000.
U.S. Immigration Fund announced it had ended their association with Kushner Cos. after the negative publicity (and then hired Squire Patton Boggs)…

AT&T Inc. admitted that in 2017 it paid Cohen’s shell company, Essential Consultants, for “insights” into the Trump administration at the time it needed government approval for an $85 billion takeover of Time Warner Inc.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?520858-Clinton-Linked-Cult-Leader-Who-Hot-Branded-Women-Arrested-For-Sex-Trafficking&p=6668730&viewfull=1#post6668730

enhanced_deficit
04-17-2020, 11:23 PM
Michael Cohen, Ex-Trump Lawyer, To Be Released Early From Prison Amid Pandemic

April 17, 2020
Ryan Lucas

Michael Cohen on the day he reported to federal prison last May. The pandemic means President Trump's former lawyer and fixer will be permitted to move to home confinement.
Kevin Hagen/AP

President Trump's former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen, is to be released early from federal prison and moved to home confinement because of the coronavirus pandemic, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to a range of financial and campaign finance crimes, as well as lying to Congress.
He is currently serving a three-year sentence at the federal correctional institution in Otisville, N.Y.

Cohen will be released to home confinement for the remainder of his sentence, according to the person with knowledge of the matter. Cohen is expected to first have to be quarantined for 14 days before going home.

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/17/836998317/michael-cohen-ex-trump-lawyer-to-be-released-early-from-prison-amid-pandemic