The Briefing Room
General Category => Trump Legal Investigations => Topic started by: Right_in_Virginia on December 11, 2018, 12:46:03 pm
-
Stormy in a teacup — campaign finance case against Trump is laughably weak
Washington Examiner, Dec 11, 2018, Editorial Board
Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York want you to know the real problem with President Trump paying off a porn star to keep her quiet about their extramarital fling is that his shady lawyer didn't use campaign funds to do it.
The legal reasoning here is tendentious and the implications are absurd, and it wouldn't be treated seriously if it were not a Republican politician being targeted for potential prosecution.
[...]
The argument is that since the hush money was paid to “influence†the election, it was a campaign expenditure. But by that logic, every dime Chris Christie spent to lose weight before his 2016 run — the diet books, the StairMaster, the bariatric surgery — was a campaign expenditure. If Christie bought a SlimFast shake with his personal money, was he a felon?
Former Federal Election Commissioner Bradley Smith posited another hypothetical: “If a business owner ran for political office and decided to pay bonuses to his employees in the hope that he would get good press and boost his stock as a candidate, would that be a campaign expenditure, payable from campaign funds?â€
If a candidate who normally gets a $12 haircut shells out $40 for a better cut, is he a criminal for paying out of his own pocket even though the idea is to look sharp in front of news cameras? If a candidate pays a contested past-due personal bill only to make the headache go away before the debates begin, is he legally required to pay out of his campaign coffers?
More: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/stormy-in-a-teacup-campaign-finance-case-against-trump-is-laughably-weak (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/stormy-in-a-teacup-campaign-finance-case-against-trump-is-laughably-weak)
-
FTA..
Cohen pleaded guilty to this campaign finance violation to avoid prison time for more serious tax evasion issues. Just because he pleads guilty doesn’t make Trump a criminal.
-
Former Federal Election Commissioner Bradley Smith posited another hypothetical: “If a business owner ran for political office and decided to pay bonuses to his employees in the hope that he would get good press and boost his stock as a candidate, would that be a campaign expenditure, payable from campaign funds?â€
Here’s a better question: If a business owner paid bonuses to his employees, didn’t report the expenditures, then later accounted for them as a different type of business expense, would he have legal problems?
-
Many seem to miss the point.
This wasn't about campaign contribution legalities. It was about gaining legal access to both Cohen and Trump's financial records which was successful because he had to have a porn star and playboy bunny while his wife was pregnant with their child.
It is what is in those financial records that put Cohen in prison not campaign contributions. Cohen was Trump's fixer lawyer for 12 years. That is where the real damage is going to come from. Campaign contributions was just a pawn in a larger game to get access to where the actual damaging information was.
-
Whisper circulating in the media is that Stormy Daniels real name
is Stormachoff Danielsov. Hmm.........could be real trouble here.
-
The rats don't need a conviction, they need the smear. This is to peel the Evangelicals off from Trump. This is the Roy Moore/Kavanaugh playbook.
-
The rats don't need a conviction, they need the smear. This is to peel the Evangelicals off from Trump. This is the Roy Moore/Kavanaugh playbook.
You’re exactly right. Trump’s only exposure here is political – not legal, as it’s been from the beginning of the Great Outrage.
God, I hate the swamp. **nononono*
Just think how Trump’s presidency could have gone if only he’d had a united GOP fighting as hard along side him to expose the cabal.
-
You’re exactly right. Trump’s only exposure here is political – not legal, as it’s been from the beginning of the Great Outrage.
God, I hate the swamp. **nononono*
Just think how Trump’s presidency could have gone if only he’d had a united GOP fighting as hard along side him to expose the cabal.
:bigsilly:
Careful, don’t guzzle too much orange koolaid all at once.
-
It isn’t laughably weak. It’s a matter of whether a jury can be convinced - or not - that the expenditure was made to influence the campaign. There is a rather elaborate set of tests that are applied, and at the end of the day, it comes down to what the jury believes.
There is a much tighter relationship between the payments here and the campaign-related purpose than there was in the John Edwards case.
That doesn’t mean that Trump is lost; it’s entirely possible that a jury would not believe the requisite connection existed when it’s given all the facts, but it does mean that this is a legitimate possibility that should be taken seriously by those who support the president.
-
:bigsilly:
Careful, don’t guzzle too much orange koolaid all at once.
Answer me this. What event, incident or action on the part of Trump or his campaign trigger the investigation into Russian collusion by the special counsel? Did suspicion of a crime trigger it? If so, what crime and what evidence?
-
It is weak. The logic here is that the payments should have been disclosed because it influenced the campiagn. Nearly everything a candidate does during a campiagn is going to influence the campaign. How far do you go to demand disclosure?
-
It is weak. The logic here is that the payments should have been disclosed because it influenced the campiagn. Nearly everything a candidate does during a campiagn is going to influence the campaign. How far do you go to demand disclosure?
By this logic Obama should be in jail for covering up his college transcripts and his meeting with terrorists that were recorded on film prior to his running.
-
Answer me this. What event, incident or action on the part of Trump or his campaign trigger the investigation into Russian collusion by the special counsel? Did suspension of a crime trigger it? If so, what crime and what evidence?
When did SDNY start investigating Russian collusion? I thought that was Mueller's gig.
-
By this logic Obama should be in jail for covering up his college transcripts and his meeting with terrorists that were recorded on film prior to his running.
That's just the beginning of the list.
-
Answer me this. What event, incident or action on the part of Trump or his campaign trigger the investigation into Russian collusion by the special counsel? Did suspension of a crime trigger it? If so, what crime and what evidence?
Tell me, did Trump try to buy the silence of this woman in the midst of his campaign for president in a manner clearly designed to prevent her story from becoming public during the campaign?
-
Tell me, did Trump try to buy the silence of this woman in the midst of his campaign for president in a manner clearly designed to prevent her story from becoming public during the campaign?
I'm having trouble finding the word "Russia" or Russians" in your question.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8xmBLqAJ6jQ/hqdefault.jpg)
-
I'm having trouble finding the word "Russia" or Russians" in your question.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8xmBLqAJ6jQ/hqdefault.jpg)
You couldn’t find your dick if Stormy Daniels wrapped your hand around it.
-
:2popcorn:
-
Tell me, did Trump try to buy the silence of this woman in the midst of his campaign for president in a manner clearly designed to prevent her story from becoming public during the campaign?
No. He did it to protect his wife and marriage. Do campaign finance laws say a candidate can't use his own money in this way?
-
No. He did it to protect his wife and marriage. Do campaign finance laws say a candidate can't use his own money in this way?
Matter of interpretation. I say he did it to protect his campaign because the facts most clearly align that way.
Well just have to wait and see what the jury says. It’ll be laughably pathetic if Trump gets taken down because he tried to hush up something that wouldn’t have hurt him if it had come out.
-
You couldn’t find your dick if Stormy Daniels wrapped your hand around it.
Why would I need to grab it? I got hot chicks for that.
-
Why would I need to grab it? I got hot chicks for that.
Where did I say anything about grabbing it?
-
Where did I say anything about grabbing it?
Christ. You're phoning it in tonight.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/fYjB9YeSH8ceY/giphy.gif)
-
Matter of interpretation.
No. It is not.
-
No. It is not.
:silly:
-
No. It is not.
I'm not sure how to interpret that.
-
Where did I say anything about grabbing it?
Don't like words being put in your mouth, or dicks in your hand, or dicks in your mouth, or whatever?
-
Don't like words being put in your mouth, or dicks in your hand, or dicks in your mouth, or whatever?
Top Notch.
-
No. He did it to protect his wife and marriage. Do campaign finance laws say a candidate can't use his own money in this way?
I'm stunned how it's completely flipped 180. In the past using anything but your own money for something like that would be a violaton, and certainly wouldn't require disclosure.
Your teenage kid is acting up and out of control, so you send him to an all-boys school in the middle of nowhere Switzerland to keep him out of the media, with your own money, but don't report it. Violation?
You start eating at a swanky restaurant to rub shoulders with the power people to enhance your visibility though you never discuss politics. All with your own money, but don't report it. Violation?
Your wife has some plastic surgery done to look better in front of the cameras. You pay for it with your own money, but don't disclose it. Violation?
-
I'm stunned how it's completely flipped 180. In the past using anything but your own money for something like that would be a violaton, and certainly wouldn't require disclosure.
Your teenage kid is acting up and out of control, so you send him to an all-boys school in the middle of nowhere Switzerland to keep him out of the media, with your own money, but don't report it. Violation?
You start eating at a swanky restaurant to rub shoulders with the power people to enhance your visibility though you never discuss politics. All with your own money, but don't report it. Violation?
Your wife has some plastic surgery done to look better in front of the cameras. You pay for it with your own money, but don't disclose it. Violation?
You totally - and intentionally - miss the point.
-
It isn’t laughably weak. It’s a matter of whether a jury can be convinced - or not - that the expenditure was made to influence the campaign. There is a rather elaborate set of tests that are applied, and at the end of the day, it comes down to what the jury believes.
There is a much tighter relationship between the payments here and the campaign-related purpose than there was in the John Edwards case.
That doesn’t mean that Trump is lost; it’s entirely possible that a jury would not believe the requisite connection existed when it’s given all the facts, but it does mean that this is a legitimate possibility that should be taken seriously by those who support the president.
IMO it is laughably weak.
What isn't laughably weak is how slimy and sleazy it is.
-
You totally - and intentionally - miss the point.
No I haven't. I've ran campaigns. I understand campaign finance. This is a completely new standard for candidates that I've never heard of.
-
No I haven't. I've ran campaigns. I understand campaign finance. This is a completely new standard for candidates that I've never heard of.
I’m still waiting to hear what some fudged loan applications Cohen submitted for his failing taxi business had to do with Russian collusion or Donald Trump?
And I’ve yet to hear a good explanation of why we got a special counsel in the first place, other than for hounding Trump out of office based on nothing more than the bureaucracy’s dislike of the voters choice in president.
-
And I’ve yet to hear a good explanation of why we got a special counsel in the first place, other than for hounding Trump out of office based on nothing more than the bureaucracy’s dislike of the voters choice in president.
You’ve heard it and likely many times, but chose to ignore it.
"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So, to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting in Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an e-mail sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain.
"It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So, there is going to be a Russia probe even without a dossier,"Gowdy said.
-
You’ve heard it and likely many times, but chose to ignore it.
"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So, to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting in Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an e-mail sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain.
"It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So, there is going to be a Russia probe even without a dossier,"Gowdy said.
Okay, Gowdy, now answer the question, why is there a Russia investigation and more importantly, why has it morphed into a roving investigation.
Don’t bother. I know the answer: show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.
Great. We’ve become the reincarnation of the Soviet Union.
-
You’ve heard it and likely many times, but chose to ignore it.
"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So, to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting in Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an e-mail sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos' meeting in Great Britain.
"It also doesn't have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So, there is going to be a Russia probe even without a dossier,"Gowdy said.
Wow. Gowdy quotes. He is easily one of the stupidest people in the House. Nothing he has ever said comes to fruition. His investigations are like watching an Inspector Clouseau movie. He sounds like a used appliance salesman.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/ihOQyb9pDVfeo/giphy.gif)
-
Wow. Gowdy quotes. He is easily one of the stupidest people in the House. Nothing he has ever said comes to fruition. His investigations are like watching an Inspector Clouseau movie. He sounds like a used appliance salesman.
If Trey is one of the stupidest people in Congress, then Nunes is the king of them all. It was his choice to put Gowdy in charge of reviewing material for the investigation, due to his experience as a prosecutor. Regardless of him being the source of the quotes, those incidents still occurred and warrant the investigation.
-
I thought criminal investigations investigate crimes. Is collusion a crime? If not, why was the special counsel appointed? And even if it were a crime, what specific evidence that Trump had colluded triggered the special counsel statute?
....because, here we are, at a point where we’re looking at a second tier lawyer for Trump who filed fraudulent information to obtain a business loan for his failing taxicab business and squeezing him to sign any statement, saying any shit just to save his ass from long jail time.
So, where’s the beef?
It’s a cabal, folks. It’s right in front of your faces, a cabal initiated by friends of Hillary in the Obama administration.
-
Yes, collusion is a crime. People are charged and convicted quite often by its other name – conspiracy. You may also recall SDNY prosecutors, in their investigation separate from Mueller’s, said Cohen was not particularly reliable or cooperative. Given that, corroborating witness and information provided the involvement of ‘Individual-1.’
-
“As a part of the agreement, AMI admitted that it made the $150,000 payment in concert with a candidate’s presidential campaign, and in order to ensure that the woman did not publicize damaging allegations about the candidate before the 2016 presidential election,†according to a press release issued by the Southern District of New York.
-snip-
“AMI further admitted that its principal purpose in making the payment was to suppress the woman’s story so as to prevent it from influencing the election,†the press release read.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tabloid-publisher-involved-trump-hush-money-payment-reaches/story?id=59779050
-
I don't recall any of this coming up when Ted Kennedy paid off the Kopechne family.
-
I don't recall any of this coming up when Ted Kennedy paid off the Kopechne family.
Wrong political party.
-
Stormy and teacup don't belong in the same sentence.
-
Wrong political party.
Trump should’ve stayed registered as a Democrat, as he was at the time off his dalliances with McDougal and Daniels.