Trump was at August 2015 meeting about hush money payments, source says

[libertybele]

Trump was at August 2015 meeting about hush money payments, source says

Donald Trump attended an August 2015 meeting that federal prosecutors believe was central to a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws to help Trump win the presidency, according to a source familiar with the matter.
According to court filings, Trump was joined by Michael Cohen, who was his attorney at the time, and David Pecker, the chairman of American Media Inc., parent company of the National Enquirer.
During the meeting, the group discussed a plan to shield Trump from potentially damaging stories. Prosecutors say this amounted to illegal donations to Trump's campaign.
Trump's attendance was first reported by the Wall Street Journal in a November article. The meeting returned to the spotlight Wednesday when federal prosecutors announced that they agreed not to prosecute AMI for campaign finance violations in exchange for its cooperation.

The newspaper reported that Trump asked Pecker what he could do to help his presidential campaign. ..........

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/13/politics/trump-hush-money-meeting/index.html

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I know it was done a little differently, but reading that a media company protecting a political candidate from damaging stories amounts to illegal campaign donations... in an article by CNN?

[Frank Cannon]

I know it was done a little differently, but reading that a media company protecting a political candidate from damaging stories amounts to illegal campaign donations... in an article by CNN?

Exactly. If these azzholes in the MSM want to die on this hill in a last gasp effort to get Trump, let them. All it will mean is that any news network that sits on anything like Newsweek on John Edwards or the NY Times on Clinton/Monica or the LA Times on Obama at a terrorist meeting will be breaking the law. It will be AWESOME!!!!!!

[Hoodat]

Exactly. If these azzholes in the MSM want to die on this hill in a last gasp effort to get Trump, let them. All it will mean is that any news network that sits on anything like Newsweek on John Edwards or the NY Times on Clinton/Monica or the LA Times on Obama at a terrorist meeting will be breaking the law. It will be AWESOME!!!!!!

You seriously believe that this law would be applied to Democrats?

[libertybele]

Trump met to 'scheme' about breaking campaign finance laws ... his attorney was just sentenced to 3 years in prison. I'd say Trump has something to be worried about. 

[libertybele]

This is it in a nutshell, did Trump know or did not know he was breaking the law? He's laying full blame on the attorney as of course the attorney is claiming that Trump was knowledgeable.

Ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen says Trump knew it was wrong to make hush-money payments during campaign

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-knew-hush-money-payments-were-wrong-ex-114018288.html

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ex-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-says-trump-knew-104904067--abc-news-topstories.html

[Hoodat]

Ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen says Trump knew it was wrong to make hush-money payments during campaign

Knew it was wrong?

.. or ..

Knew it was illegal.

Big difference.

(btw, it's not illegal, especially considering that no federal tax dollars were used.)

[skeeter]

This is it in a nutshell, did Trump know or did not know he was breaking the law? He's laying full blame on the attorney as of course the attorney is claiming that Trump was knowledgeable.

Ex-Trump lawyer Michael Cohen says Trump knew it was wrong to make hush-money payments during campaign

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-knew-hush-money-payments-were-wrong-ex-114018288.html

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ex-trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-says-trump-knew-104904067--abc-news-topstories.html

Why not wait until its clear laws were broken before declaring laws were broken? Because that has not been established at all.

[libertybele]

Knew it was wrong?

.. or ..

Knew it was illegal.

Big difference.

(btw, it's not illegal, especially considering that no federal tax dollars were used.)

I'm not a lawyer and certainly don't want to assume the legality of the situation.  It's going to boil down to whether or not the DEMS and Mueller think that they have enough evidence to indict him and/or start impeachment proceedings ... we'll know after the new Congress is sworn in.

[Hoodat]

A ham sandwich can be indicted.  A standing President cannot.  Did we not learn anything from Clinton's impeachment?

[Oceander]

Knew it was wrong?

.. or ..

Knew it was illegal.

Big difference.

(btw, it's not illegal, especially considering that no federal tax dollars were used.)

It could be illegal, depending on all the facts and circumstances. 

[Oceander]

A ham sandwich can be indicted.  A standing President cannot.  Did we not learn anything from Clinton's impeachment?

That is still an open question, as far as the president is concerned.

[Jazzhead]

And just what should a presidential candidate do to defend himself against personal blackmail?   

[Oceander]

Exactly. If these azzholes in the MSM want to die on this hill in a last gasp effort to get Trump, let them. All it will mean is that any news network that sits on anything like Newsweek on John Edwards or the NY Times on Clinton/Monica or the LA Times on Obama at a terrorist meeting will be breaking the law. It will be AWESOME!!!!!!

It would only apply if they paid money to someone with the intent of keeping that person quiet.  Simply publishing glowing stories about someone, or refusing to print negative stories, would not count.

[Oceander]

And just what should a presidential candidate do to defend himself against personal blackmail?   

If he wants to pay hush money, as opposed to going to the police or dealing with it in public, he should pay with his own money and disclose it as a potential campaign contribution.

[Hoodat]

It could be illegal, depending on all the facts and circumstances.

Please explain how it could be illegal?  Give me a hypothetical set of facts and circumstances that would be considered a violation of law.  Thanks.

[Hoodat]

That is still an open question, as far as the president is concerned.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

[Oceander]

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/2000/10/31/op-olc-v024-p0222_0.pdf

That’s a nice argument, but it’s not definitive and there are plenty of counter arguments.  In other words, like I said, it’s an open question. 

It also doesn’t address the issue of whether an indictment can be issued in order to avoid the statute of limitations from expiring, but then be held in abeyance until the indicted individual is out of office.  Or whether any such immunity would simply toll the statute of limitations by it’s own weight, as a matter of equity. 

[Oceander]

Please explain how it could be illegal?  Give me a hypothetical set of facts and circumstances that would be considered a violation of law.  Thanks.

A payment made for the purpose of influencing an election that is not properly disclosed is an illegal campaign violation.  The only question is the degree of relationship to the purpose, and the believability of any alternative explanations. 

The payments in this case provide more than enough evidence that would support a jury’s verdict that the payments in question were illegal campaign contributions.  Such a jury finding would not be overturned as against the weight of the evidence. 

[Hoodat]

A payment made for the purpose of influencing an election that is not properly disclosed is an illegal campaign violation.

Complete unadulterated bullshit.  If you go purchase a campaign sign on some political position or candidate and place that sign in your yard, but fail to properly disclose that purchase - are you really going to tell us that this is an illegal campaign violation?

[RoosGirl]

Complete unadulterated bullshit.  If you go purchase a campaign sign on some political position or candidate and place that sign in your yard, but fail to properly disclose that purchase - are you really going to tell us that this is an illegal campaign violation?

I believe he means a payment made by the candidate.

[Emjay]

Exactly. If these azzholes in the MSM want to die on this hill in a last gasp effort to get Trump, let them. All it will mean is that any news network that sits on anything like Newsweek on John Edwards or the NY Times on Clinton/Monica or the LA Times on Obama at a terrorist meeting will be breaking the law. It will be AWESOME!!!!!!

I know this is heresy and I may be drummed out of the few organizations I still belong to, but ... Has Freedom of the Press become sacred?

I know it is a Right under the Constitution, but shouldn't there be limits?  I mean ... just because your name is CNN, is that a license to lie?

These news organizations have been lying about Trump since he entered the race and they've doubled down since he beat their baby girl and ruined their dreams of a Socialist paradise.

I really think both ordinary people and even Presidents should have some recourse against the press when they are lied about.

[GrouchoTex]

The reality of impeachment is that there has to be a political will in doing so.
We already know that the will exist among 1/2 of the country who lean left.
Stories like this are designed to pick of enough percentage points, from those either against it, or on the fence, to get that mark over 50%.

Impeachment is political, and we know what constitutes "High Crimes", but ask the population to define "misdemeanors", especially as it would relate to someone in public office.
It could mean anything.
Jay walking is a misdemeanor, speeding, etc.

Frankly, you could claim all politicians commit "misdemeanors" every time they give a stump speech, by debasing their opponents and inflating there own achievements.
Of course, the first amendment covers free speech, but I think you can see where I am going with this.

[Jazzhead]

If he wants to pay hush money, as opposed to going to the police or dealing with it in public, he should pay with his own money and disclose it as a potential campaign contribution.

I may be wrong, but I think it is the case that Trump reimbursed American Media from his own pocket.   If that's correct, how was this a campaign contribution?   

[Hoodat]

I believe he means a payment made by the candidate.

Which is why I specifically asked for a hypothetical instead of some generalization.  The flaw with the generalization here is that it assumes ANY expenditure by a political candidate can be construed as a campaign expense.  You bought a new suit?  Felony for not properly disclosing it.  You paid off back taxes?  Felony for not properly disclosing it.  You got your private jet repainted?  Felony for not properly disclosing it.  You got your daughter's braces replaced with clear ones that are less unsightly?  Felony for not properly disclosing it.  Dyed your hair?  Felony for not properly disclosing it.  Donated money to Toys for Tots?  Felony for not properly disclosing it.

Each and every one of these could be construed as a campaign donation if we are to use the very loose (and unequally applied) definition posed by liberals in this case.  Of course Democrats can continue to hand out bags of cash (i.e. "street money") to get out the vote, and not one of these same liberals even remotely suggests that there is anything illegal about that.