Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous –

[Hellokitty]

Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…

Posted on August 21, 2018by sundance
The Michael Cohen plea agreement (full pdf here) is a total of eight counts claimed by the SDNY as unlawful activity. However, one count is entirely political and not supported by the Federal Election Commission. Guess which one the media focus on?

Yeah, let’s review.

Within the plea agreement the first five charges relate to tax avoidance, or tax evasion. Each count relates to a specific tax year: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. The sixth charge, a bank fraud charge, relates to lying on a credit application. These six charges appear valid, documented and agreed in the plea. The seventh charge, relates to structuring financial transactions through the use of a corporation. This charge is tenuous, but arguable.

However, the eighth charge is the one the media are focused on. The charge of an illegal campaign contribution:



This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.

Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.




Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith explains the details of the non-issue to radio host Mark Levin. Watch/Listen:


.




Here is the plea agreement:
View this document on Scribd
.



Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…


Just keep in mind TRUMP works best under pressure...

 

[ColonelAngus]

So Trump and Putin colluded to make Cohen evade paying taxes to rig the 2016 POTUS election against Hillary Clinton?

 

[BluesLegend]

But but but...now we can't nail Trump

 

[ColonelAngus]

Was it illegal for Bill Clinton to pay $850,000 to Paula Jones?

Asking for a friend.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Was it illegal for Bill Clinton to pay $850,000 to Paula Jones?

Asking for a friend.

Did he do it to influence the outcome of an election?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…

Posted on August 21, 2018by sundance
The Michael Cohen plea agreement (full pdf here) is a total of eight counts claimed by the SDNY as unlawful activity. However, one count is entirely political and not supported by the Federal Election Commission. Guess which one the media focus on?

Yeah, let’s review.

Within the plea agreement the first five charges relate to tax avoidance, or tax evasion. Each count relates to a specific tax year: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. The sixth charge, a bank fraud charge, relates to lying on a credit application. These six charges appear valid, documented and agreed in the plea. The seventh charge, relates to structuring financial transactions through the use of a corporation. This charge is tenuous, but arguable.

However, the eighth charge is the one the media are focused on. The charge of an illegal campaign contribution:



This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.

Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.




Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith explains the details of the non-issue to radio host Mark Levin. Watch/Listen:


.




Here is the plea agreement:
View this document on Scribd
.



Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…


Just keep in mind TRUMP works best under pressure...

The payment was made to keep her story out of the news during the election, it was done to influence the outcome of the election, the same as any other campaign expense. But it was not reported as such.

 

[depotoo]

Alan Dershowitz explained this morning it is not illegal. The Alan Dershowitz the left once coveted, a known Constitutional scholar and Harvard Constitutional law professor.

Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…

Posted on August 21, 2018by sundance
The Michael Cohen plea agreement (full pdf here) is a total of eight counts claimed by the SDNY as unlawful activity. However, one count is entirely political and not supported by the Federal Election Commission. Guess which one the media focus on?

Yeah, let’s review.

Within the plea agreement the first five charges relate to tax avoidance, or tax evasion. Each count relates to a specific tax year: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. The sixth charge, a bank fraud charge, relates to lying on a credit application. These six charges appear valid, documented and agreed in the plea. The seventh charge, relates to structuring financial transactions through the use of a corporation. This charge is tenuous, but arguable.

However, the eighth charge is the one the media are focused on. The charge of an illegal campaign contribution:



This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.

Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.




Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith explains the details of the non-issue to radio host Mark Levin. Watch/Listen:


.




Here is the plea agreement:
View this document on Scribd
.



Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…


Just keep in mind TRUMP works best under pressure...

The payment was made to keep her story out of the news during the election, it was done to influence the outcome of the election, the same as any other campaign expense. But it was not reported as such.

 

[Hellokitty]

Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…

Posted on August 21, 2018by sundance
The Michael Cohen plea agreement (full pdf here) is a total of eight counts claimed by the SDNY as unlawful activity. However, one count is entirely political and not supported by the Federal Election Commission. Guess which one the media focus on?

Yeah, let’s review.

Within the plea agreement the first five charges relate to tax avoidance, or tax evasion. Each count relates to a specific tax year: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. The sixth charge, a bank fraud charge, relates to lying on a credit application. These six charges appear valid, documented and agreed in the plea. The seventh charge, relates to structuring financial transactions through the use of a corporation. This charge is tenuous, but arguable.

However, the eighth charge is the one the media are focused on. The charge of an illegal campaign contribution:



This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.

Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.




Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith explains the details of the non-issue to radio host Mark Levin. Watch/Listen:


.




Here is the plea agreement:
View this document on Scribd
.



Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…


Just keep in mind TRUMP works best under pressure...

The payment was made to keep her story out of the news during the election, it was done to influence the outcome of the election, the same as any other campaign expense. But it was not reported as such.

Because it wasn't paid by the campaign.

 

[tinydancer]

What on earth do they have on Cohen to force him to plea guilty to a non crime/campaign finance? Must be really really nasty.

 

[tinydancer]

Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…

Posted on August 21, 2018by sundance
The Michael Cohen plea agreement (full pdf here) is a total of eight counts claimed by the SDNY as unlawful activity. However, one count is entirely political and not supported by the Federal Election Commission. Guess which one the media focus on?

Yeah, let’s review.

Within the plea agreement the first five charges relate to tax avoidance, or tax evasion. Each count relates to a specific tax year: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. The sixth charge, a bank fraud charge, relates to lying on a credit application. These six charges appear valid, documented and agreed in the plea. The seventh charge, relates to structuring financial transactions through the use of a corporation. This charge is tenuous, but arguable.

However, the eighth charge is the one the media are focused on. The charge of an illegal campaign contribution:



This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.

Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.




Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith explains the details of the non-issue to radio host Mark Levin. Watch/Listen:


.




Here is the plea agreement:
View this document on Scribd
.



Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…


Just keep in mind TRUMP works best under pressure...

The payment was made to keep her story out of the news during the election, it was done to influence the outcome of the election, the same as any other campaign expense. But it was not reported as such.

Because it wasn't paid by the campaign.

FEC Chairman on the Levin show has been most enlightening.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So Trump and Putin colluded to make Cohen evade paying taxes to rig the 2016 POTUS election against Hillary Clinton?

Conspiracy to collude to obstruct Hillary from the White House!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…

Posted on August 21, 2018by sundance
The Michael Cohen plea agreement (full pdf here) is a total of eight counts claimed by the SDNY as unlawful activity. However, one count is entirely political and not supported by the Federal Election Commission. Guess which one the media focus on?

Yeah, let’s review.

Within the plea agreement the first five charges relate to tax avoidance, or tax evasion. Each count relates to a specific tax year: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. The sixth charge, a bank fraud charge, relates to lying on a credit application. These six charges appear valid, documented and agreed in the plea. The seventh charge, relates to structuring financial transactions through the use of a corporation. This charge is tenuous, but arguable.

However, the eighth charge is the one the media are focused on. The charge of an illegal campaign contribution:



This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.

Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.




Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith explains the details of the non-issue to radio host Mark Levin. Watch/Listen:


.




Here is the plea agreement:
View this document on Scribd
.



Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…


Just keep in mind TRUMP works best under pressure...

The payment was made to keep her story out of the news during the election, it was done to influence the outcome of the election, the same as any other campaign expense. But it was not reported as such.

Because it wasn't paid by the campaign.

irrelevant.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Alan Dershowitz explained this morning it is not illegal. The Alan Dershowitz the left once coveted, a known Constitutional scholar and Harvard Constitutional law professor.

Well sure, people plead guilty to non-crimes all the time

 

[tinydancer]

Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…

Posted on August 21, 2018by sundance
The Michael Cohen plea agreement (full pdf here) is a total of eight counts claimed by the SDNY as unlawful activity. However, one count is entirely political and not supported by the Federal Election Commission. Guess which one the media focus on?

Yeah, let’s review.

Within the plea agreement the first five charges relate to tax avoidance, or tax evasion. Each count relates to a specific tax year: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. The sixth charge, a bank fraud charge, relates to lying on a credit application. These six charges appear valid, documented and agreed in the plea. The seventh charge, relates to structuring financial transactions through the use of a corporation. This charge is tenuous, but arguable.

However, the eighth charge is the one the media are focused on. The charge of an illegal campaign contribution:



This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.

Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.




Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith explains the details of the non-issue to radio host Mark Levin. Watch/Listen:


.




Here is the plea agreement:
View this document on Scribd
.



Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…


Just keep in mind TRUMP works best under pressure...

The payment was made to keep her story out of the news during the election, it was done to influence the outcome of the election, the same as any other campaign expense. But it was not reported as such.

NDA's are paid out all the time. Not out of campaign funds. Even Jon Edwards got a pass actually USING campaign funds to cover up his affair.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…

Posted on August 21, 2018by sundance
The Michael Cohen plea agreement (full pdf here) is a total of eight counts claimed by the SDNY as unlawful activity. However, one count is entirely political and not supported by the Federal Election Commission. Guess which one the media focus on?

Yeah, let’s review.

Within the plea agreement the first five charges relate to tax avoidance, or tax evasion. Each count relates to a specific tax year: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. The sixth charge, a bank fraud charge, relates to lying on a credit application. These six charges appear valid, documented and agreed in the plea. The seventh charge, relates to structuring financial transactions through the use of a corporation. This charge is tenuous, but arguable.

However, the eighth charge is the one the media are focused on. The charge of an illegal campaign contribution:



This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.

Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.




Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith explains the details of the non-issue to radio host Mark Levin. Watch/Listen:


.




Here is the plea agreement:
View this document on Scribd
.



Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…


Just keep in mind TRUMP works best under pressure...

The payment was made to keep her story out of the news during the election, it was done to influence the outcome of the election, the same as any other campaign expense. But it was not reported as such.

NDA's are paid out all the time. Not out of campaign funds. Even Jon Edwards got a pass actually USING campaign funds to cover up his affair.

If a candidate uses their own cash for a campaign expense, it is still a campaign expense and they can get in trouble for not reporting it. That is what happened here, among other things.

 

[Hellokitty]

Dershowitz Constitutional scholar/Harvard Constitutional law professor

Lanny Davis Clinton advisor political strategist

I'd put Dershowitz's understanding of the law over Hillary hack Davis.

Alan Dershowitz explained this morning it is not illegal. The Alan Dershowitz the left once coveted, a known Constitutional scholar and Harvard Constitutional law professor.

Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…

Posted on August 21, 2018by sundance
The Michael Cohen plea agreement (full pdf here) is a total of eight counts claimed by the SDNY as unlawful activity. However, one count is entirely political and not supported by the Federal Election Commission. Guess which one the media focus on?

Yeah, let’s review.

Within the plea agreement the first five charges relate to tax avoidance, or tax evasion. Each count relates to a specific tax year: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. The sixth charge, a bank fraud charge, relates to lying on a credit application. These six charges appear valid, documented and agreed in the plea. The seventh charge, relates to structuring financial transactions through the use of a corporation. This charge is tenuous, but arguable.

However, the eighth charge is the one the media are focused on. The charge of an illegal campaign contribution:



This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.

Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.




Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith explains the details of the non-issue to radio host Mark Levin. Watch/Listen:


.




Here is the plea agreement:
View this document on Scribd
.



Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…


Just keep in mind TRUMP works best under pressure...

The payment was made to keep her story out of the news during the election, it was done to influence the outcome of the election, the same as any other campaign expense. But it was not reported as such.

 

[Hellokitty]

Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…

Posted on August 21, 2018by sundance
The Michael Cohen plea agreement (full pdf here) is a total of eight counts claimed by the SDNY as unlawful activity. However, one count is entirely political and not supported by the Federal Election Commission. Guess which one the media focus on?

Yeah, let’s review.

Within the plea agreement the first five charges relate to tax avoidance, or tax evasion. Each count relates to a specific tax year: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. The sixth charge, a bank fraud charge, relates to lying on a credit application. These six charges appear valid, documented and agreed in the plea. The seventh charge, relates to structuring financial transactions through the use of a corporation. This charge is tenuous, but arguable.

However, the eighth charge is the one the media are focused on. The charge of an illegal campaign contribution:



This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.

Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.




Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

♦The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith explains the details of the non-issue to radio host Mark Levin. Watch/Listen:


.




Here is the plea agreement:
View this document on Scribd
.



Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…


Just keep in mind TRUMP works best under pressure...

The payment was made to keep her story out of the news during the election, it was done to influence the outcome of the election, the same as any other campaign expense. But it was not reported as such.

Because it wasn't paid by the campaign.

irrelevant.

Not according to FEC

 

[Hellokitty]

Alan Dershowitz explained this morning it is not illegal. The Alan Dershowitz the left once coveted, a known Constitutional scholar and Harvard Constitutional law professor.

Well sure, people plead guilty to non-crimes all the time

It happens all the time to avoid other charges. Cohen much like Flynn doesn't have the money to fight against a corrupt judicial system.

 

[Camp]

Was it illegal for Bill Clinton to pay $850,000 to Paula Jones?

Asking for a friend.

Payment was made by Clinton's insurance coverage and under court order and supervision.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…

Posted on August 21, 2018by sundance
The Michael Cohen plea agreement (full pdf here) is a total of eight counts claimed by the SDNY as unlawful activity. However, one count is entirely political and not supported by the Federal Election Commission. Guess which one the media focus on?

Yeah, let’s review.

Within the plea agreement the first five charges relate to tax avoidance, or tax evasion. Each count relates to a specific tax year: 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. The sixth charge, a bank fraud charge, relates to lying on a credit application. These six charges appear valid, documented and agreed in the plea. The seventh charge, relates to structuring financial transactions through the use of a corporation. This charge is tenuous, but arguable.

However, the eighth charge is the one the media are focused on. The charge of an illegal campaign contribution:



This Count Eight transaction surrounds a payment to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) of $130,000 for a nuisance claim. Who says it is a campaign contribution? The SDNY does, no-one else. Not even the FEC considers this a campaign contribution.

Count eight is a political charge/plea specifically included for the purpose of pulling Donald Trump into the SDNY Cohen case. There is no FEC violation here. *Note it is not the Federal Election Commission making the claim, only the SDNY prosecutors.




Despite the media hype it is not a campaign contribution for a candidate to instruct his attorney to pay-off a nuisance claim to avoid any issues or embarrassment. It is not a campaign donation for Donald Trump to reimburse his attorney for paying the claim.

[emoji815]The issue of the Cohen payment being an “in kind” campaign contribution is the bottom line question which underpins the charge.

There is no FEC rule or law that says a candidate cannot pay-off an accuser to avoid further issues, a nuisance claim. Paying an accuser to avoid controversy or embarrassment, is no different than a candidate buying an American made car -with personal funds- to gain the beneficial public optics of not driving a foreign car. Neither expense example makes the payment an aspect of am “in kind” campaign contribution.

There is no connected claim that President Trump used campaign funds to repay his attorney for eliminating the nuisance claim. President Trump, a businessman, used his own business income to repay his attorney; an attorney on a monthly retainer.

The entire charge of Cohen making a campaign contribution, or campaign finance violation, is a manufactured claim, made only by the SDNY, for political benefit.

Former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith explains the details of the non-issue to radio host Mark Levin. Watch/Listen:


.




Here is the plea agreement:
View this document on Scribd
.



Michael Cohen Plea Agreement – Six Counts Valid, One Count Possibly Invalid, One Count Ridiculous – Guess Where The Media Focus…


Just keep in mind TRUMP works best under pressure...

The payment was made to keep her story out of the news during the election, it was done to influence the outcome of the election, the same as any other campaign expense. But it was not reported as such.

Because it wasn't paid by the campaign.

irrelevant.

Not according to FEC

Nope you are wrong. If a candidate uses his own personal funds to buy TV ads and does not report them as a campaign expense they are in violation of the laws. That is basically what Trump did here


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com