Prosecutors probing potential links between Trump Organization executives and hush-money payments: r

[Chosen Daughter]

I step into this thread with trepidation.  The Edwards trial took place here.  A client was on the jury.  Afterwards, she told me that had Edwards paid out of funds DONATED TO HIS CAMPAIGN, he would have been convicted.  Apparently, the judge's instructions on the law were enough to get Edwards off. 

My thought is that as long as no money donated to the campaign was used, Trump is within the law.  Especially since Trump has done this in the past.

I am very cynical about these things now.  The press blows up on something that will "finish" Trump every few days.  I did not vote for Trump (because I do not believe he has the character I want in a President),  but I am sooooo  weary of this crap from the press.  Combine that with the double standard you see in everything (if a Dem does it, it's a nothing burger, if a Republican does it, it's jail), I don't know what it would take to convince me Trump had done something truly treasonable or criminal.  Shady, yes.  I believe the man is shady, but I also think he is a piker in that category alongside most politicians.  As I said, I have become very cynical.

If you are correct you would think his lawyers will prevail.  Precedence is already set unless the money was from campaign donations.

Doesn't change how I feel about it.  He did it to deceive voters.  We will never know if this story came out if Donald Trump would have been elected.  Lots of Christians voted for him.

[ConstitutionRose]

If you are correct you would think his lawyers will prevail.  Precedence is already set unless the money was from campaign donations.

Doesn't change how I feel about it.  He did it to deceive voters.  We will never know if this story came out if Donald Trump would have been elected.  Lots of Christians voted for him.

Color me cynical - but those same Christians voted for him inspite of his questionable business deals, his many known marital infidelities and the whole "grab the bleep" thing.  I really doubt the Stormy Daniels revelation would have made any difference.

I believe a large portion of the population was ready to elect ANYONE who was not a politician.  And I believe that most of that population view efforts to bring down Trump as a direct attack on them.

It's just ugly.

[Oceander]

I step into this thread with trepidation.  The Edwards trial took place here.  A client was on the jury.  Afterwards, she told me that had Edwards paid out of funds DONATED TO HIS CAMPAIGN, he would have been convicted.  Apparently, the judge's instructions on the law were enough to get Edwards off. 

My thought is that as long as no money donated to the campaign was used, Trump is within the law.  Especially since Trump has done this in the past.

I am very cynical about these things now.  The press blows up on something that will "finish" Trump every few days.  I did not vote for Trump (because I do not believe he has the character I want in a President),  but I am sooooo  weary of this crap from the press.  Combine that with the double standard you see in everything (if a Dem does it, it's a nothing burger, if a Republican does it, it's jail), I don't know what it would take to convince me Trump had done something truly treasonable or criminal.  Shady, yes.  I believe the man is shady, but I also think he is a piker in that category alongside most politicians.  As I said, I have become very cynical.

And you would be incorrect.  Clearly, if funds from the campaigns own bank account, they would be illegal, but having the money go direct from a contributor to the third party receiving the funds does not avoid the issue.  If, hypothetically, a supporter wrote checks directly to the television station for political ads, that would be a campaign contribution, and the failure to report it as such would violate federal election laws. 

[edpc]

And you would be incorrect.  Clearly, if funds from the campaigns own bank account, they would be illegal, but having the money go direct from a contributor to the third party receiving the funds does not avoid the issue.  If, hypothetically, a supporter wrote checks directly to the television station for political ads, that would be a campaign contribution, and the failure to report it as such would violate federal election laws.

A lot of people point to the fact an individual is not limited on how much of his own funds can be spent on the campaign. While that is true, they are leaving out an important component - disclosure.

The payment was not disclosed on the 2017 filing. Additionally, the repayment structure to Cohen was set up in a way to make it seem like retainrr for legal work, when in fact, the money was a bridge loan. It is likely the SDNY has supporting documentation from the raid and statements from Trump Organization and AMI personnel, confirming the purposeful obfuscation. That’s a big problem.

[RoosGirl]

And you would be incorrect.  Clearly, if funds from the campaigns own bank account, they would be illegal, but having the money go direct from a contributor to the third party receiving the funds does not avoid the issue.  If, hypothetically, a supporter wrote checks directly to the television station for political ads, that would be a campaign contribution, and the failure to report it as such would violate federal election laws.

It would only be illegal to use funds from the campaign account if it was not disclosed on the applicable FEC forms.  Frim what I read in the article @edpc linked for us, that is the issue. And it becomes a criminal, instead of civil, issue because the amount of money given was above whatever threshold the law establishes.  So, it's potentially illegal because of the appearance of a run around campaign finance law and it is criminal because of the amount of money involved.  I say potentially because a jury would have to be convinced that the money was paid in attempt to influence the election.

[TomSea]

First it was about Russia collusion, that falls through, then, it becomes about obstruction of justice, that fails. This whole thing is a fishing expedition. 

[skeeter]

First it was about Russia collusion, that falls through, then, it becomes about obstruction of justice, that fails. This whole thing is a fishing expedition.

Well, the whole campaign finance violation thing worked against Dinesh D'Souza.

[edpc]

First it was about Russia collusion, that falls through, then, it becomes about obstruction of justice, that fails. This whole thing is a fishing expedition.

Except there are multiple investigations running concurrently with crossover - SDNY, Mueller, and DC looking into Cohen, Russian connections, and Butina, respectively. If someone, like myself, with pedestrian legal knowledge can keep up, so should you.

[Oceander]

First it was about Russia collusion, that falls through, then, it becomes about obstruction of justice, that fails. This whole thing is a fishing expedition. 

Then it’s too bad Trump has been so assiduously giving them bait. 

[RoosGirl]

First it was about Russia collusion, that falls through, then, it becomes about obstruction of justice, that fails. This whole thing is a fishing expedition.

You know how this wouldn't have been an issue?  If Trump hadn't bleep a porn star and then had to pay her off to keep quiet during his campaign.

[Oceander]

It would only be illegal to use funds from the campaign account if it was not disclosed on the applicable FEC forms.  Frim what I read in the article @edpc linked for us, that is the issue. And it becomes a criminal, instead of civil, issue because the amount of money given was above whatever threshold the law establishes.  So, it's potentially illegal because of the appearance of a run around campaign finance law and it is criminal because of the amount of money involved.  I say potentially because a jury would have to be convinced that the money was paid in attempt to influence the election.

At the end of the day, it is a factual issue, and so a jury would have the final say on what the legal consequences of the actions taken will be, if it ever gets that far.

[Cyber Liberty]

You know how this wouldn't have been an issue?  If Trump hadn't bleep a porn star and then had to pay her off to keep quiet during his campaign.

Stop making sense.

[Oceander]

You know how this wouldn't have been an issue?  If Trump hadn't bleep a porn star and then had to pay her off to keep quiet during his campaign.

Or if he had simply been honest about it all in the first place.  I seriously doubt it would have had much effect on the election if he had simply owned up to it. 

[skeeter]

You know how this wouldn't have been an issue?  If Trump hadn't bleep a porn star and then had to pay her off to keep quiet during his campaign.

And even that wouldn't have mattered had Trump changed his party affiliation.

[RoosGirl]

At the end of the day, it is a factual issue, and so a jury would have the final say on what the legal consequences of the actions taken will be, if it ever gets that far.

Not necessarily, it is still opinion if Trump did it to influence the election.

[Sanguine]

It would only be illegal to use funds from the campaign account if it was not disclosed on the applicable FEC forms.  Frim what I read in the article @edpc linked for us, that is the issue. And it becomes a criminal, instead of civil, issue because the amount of money given was above whatever threshold the law establishes.  So, it's potentially illegal because of the appearance of a run around campaign finance law and it is criminal because of the amount of money involved.  I say potentially because a jury would have to be convinced that the money was paid in attempt to influence the election.

And, Trump's defense will be that it was not a campaign issue and he would have had to have paid this regardless to protect his reputation as a business person, and as a married man.  That is why he would have paid it out of personal, not campaign funds.  And, he will probably win on that.  We know that he was notoriously cheap with his personal funds, so the assumption would be that he would want to pay this out of campaign funds. 

I'm not saying I think it's a good idea or that I buy it, but I think it will be a winning argument for this situation.

[GtHawk]

Here's a first image of prosecutors preparing to probe!

[RoosGirl]

And even that wouldn't have mattered had Trump changed his party affiliation.

Again. 

Frankly, I find the whole thing absurd.  But, you want to run with the big dogs you better dot your i and cross your t, and have some very savvy people you can trust for advice.

[Sanguine]

You know how this wouldn't have been an issue?  If Trump hadn't bleep a porn star and then had to pay her off to keep quiet during his campaign.

 

[RoosGirl]

And, Trump's defense will be that it was not a campaign issue and he would have had to have paid this regardless to protect his reputation as a business person, and as a married man.  That is why he would have paid it out of personal, not campaign funds.  And, he will probably win on that.  We know that he was notoriously cheap with his personal funds, so the assumption would be that he would want to pay this out of campaign funds. 

I'm not saying I think it's a good idea or that I buy it, but I think it will be a winning argument for this situation.

Yes. And I can somewhat agree with that angle. But the timing of it all is what makes me somewhat agree with the campaign finance fraud angle.

[Sanguine]

Yes. And I can somewhat agree with that angle. But the timing of it all is what makes me somewhat agree with the campaign finance fraud angle.

That's easily explained by "she wasn't interested in extortion until I became a candidate".  Or, he may have some evidence of contact before he did become a candidate.  If he had paid her after he was elected, then it would be hard to make either argument, but while he was just a candidate, he would have an interest in maintaining his reputation (I know, I know) so that he could continue to be a TV star and businessperson if he didn't win.

[Frank Cannon]

You know how this wouldn't have been an issue?  If Trump hadn't bleep a porn star and then had to pay her off to keep quiet during his campaign.

I wouldn't have voted for him if he didn't do that.

[skeeter]

Again. 

Frankly, I find the whole thing absurd.  But, you want to run with the big dogs you better dot your i and cross your t, and have some very savvy people you can trust for advice.

It is absurd.

But, unfortunately, the only chance issues that matter to me have is in Trump's success. So until I see real evidence of actual wrongdoing I ain't gonna join in the pile on.

[Emjay]

I step into this thread with trepidation.  The Edwards trial took place here.  A client was on the jury.  Afterwards, she told me that had Edwards paid out of funds DONATED TO HIS CAMPAIGN, he would have been convicted.  Apparently, the judge's instructions on the law were enough to get Edwards off. 

My thought is that as long as no money donated to the campaign was used, Trump is within the law.  Especially since Trump has done this in the past.

I am very cynical about these things now.  The press blows up on something that will "finish" Trump every few days.  I did not vote for Trump (because I do not believe he has the character I want in a President),  but I am sooooo  weary of this crap from the press.  Combine that with the double standard you see in everything (if a Dem does it, it's a nothing burger, if a Republican does it, it's jail), I don't know what it would take to convince me Trump had done something truly treasonable or criminal.  Shady, yes.  I believe the man is shady, but I also think he is a piker in that category alongside most politicians.  As I said, I have become very cynical.

Very thoughtful post @ConstitutionRose   And so true.  This is exactly why I'm cynical about every single accusation about Trump.  The democrats and most of the news media can enjoy a nice dinner of horrible sex abuses by liberals and democrats and then muster up horror ... utter horror and disgust over some rumors about Trump spending a few hours with a high-priced hooker.

Until one democrat admits that Clinton was a serial sexual abuser who threatened his victims instead of paying them off, I am ignoring the Trump stuff. Before Trump was elected, I didn't want him because of that and other character traits that I thought would keep him from being a good President.

But, those things have not kept Trump from being a good President.  The very things that have made his administration look like a shambles in some ways ... those things being that Trump was not insured and molded by a background in the inner workings of DC and a total unfamiliarity with who can be trusted and who can't.  This has caused disruption in staff which some latch onto as chaos.  It is not.  It is a somewhat chaotic base from which Trump operates in a sensible manner.

An advantage of not being a part of 'how things are done' for lo, these many years, is that Trump brings a fresh outlook and sensible solutions.  Just because America has been content with unfair trade for a long time does not mean we have to be.  Just because the socialist wing has made some poor people think that if all the rich people could be brought down they would be rich, does not make it so.  Trump wants to make things easier for business to operate here because that's where people get jobs.

And, yes,  the U.S. has been way too tolerant of illegals.  You cannot turn on an entertainment show without seeing a really sweet, hard-working, family-loving illegal family being threatened by some mean ICE people.  We either have laws or we don't.  Trump was the first to emphasize that we should have boundaries.

And Trump is almost innocent in some ways.  Yes, he marveled at how a lot of women would through themselves at rich men and, yes, he talked about that in public.  He wasn't even sneaky about it.  But he didn't force himself on anybody and when they threatened publicity, he didn't send a hit man.  He paid.

So, yeah, I believe if I try really hard, I will be able to get over these Trump affairs and maybe even go on with my life.

[RoosGirl]

I wouldn't have voted for him if he didn't do that.

I see, you would have stepped out on Melania too?  There's no way the porn star is a hotter piece of ass than Melania is.