Paying people off to avoid a scandal is perfectly legal

[night_son]

Whore monger? Obama dropped 100 times more bombs than Trump ever thought of dropping. How many people did the Nobel peace prize winner kill with drones?

Bombs?

://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush
://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/7806882/US-cluster-bombs-killed-35-women-and-children.html
More Than 2,400 Dead as Obama’s Drone Campaign Marks Five Years

deflect much?

I simply replied to your question about bombs.

Oh.

It wasn’t a question about bombs…it a question about why Obama is brought up and what his bombing has to do with the thread…

I understand the trump ass kissers brains are exploding and that they’re desperate but this seems particularly desperate.

Just the facts, even if provided out of thread context, in answer to: Bombs? No derailment or deflection or insult intended.

 

[candycorn]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

Oh yes it is.
And I'll gladly tell you why.
When you contribute to a campaign a "thing of value" it has to be documented and reported. That doesn't even need to be money.
The women were shushed to affect the outcome of the election, so that, by definition, makes it part of the campaign.

Say the president paid with his own money (which it looks like he did). They call that "in kind". It was money paid to affect the outcome of the election, so it was money paid to his campaign.
And it was unreported which means campaign finance laws were broken.
All he had to do was report it.
What's funny is how alike it is to Clinton's BJ. If Bill had reported his BJ from the beginning, Republicans never could have cornered him into lying to his wife.
Ergo,
If Trump had reported his payoffs to his hookers, he never would have broken campaign finance laws.

But Bill never had to pay for his BJ. He got that for free.

And what if he made the NDA payments to avoid personal embarrassment, in whole or in part?

.

Which is what John Edwards did being married and all.

Only Trump was taped. And his timing was two weeks before the election.

And there were multiple women involved.

Edwards problem is he used campaign money to make the payoff, which is illegal. If there was a personal benefit, it's not a legitimate campaign expense. Trump gained a personal benefit, so it can't legally be a campaign expense. If it wasn't a legal campaign expense and wasn't paid with campaign money, there is no violation of campaign finance law.

.

Trump’s lawyer pled guilty to campaign finance violations. I suppose Trump ass kissers would have us believe that he was working for Hillary?

 

[candycorn]

Bombs?

://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush
://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/7806882/US-cluster-bombs-killed-35-women-and-children.html
More Than 2,400 Dead as Obama’s Drone Campaign Marks Five Years

deflect much?

I simply replied to your question about bombs.

Oh.

It wasn’t a question about bombs…it a question about why Obama is brought up and what his bombing has to do with the thread…

I understand the trump ass kissers brains are exploding and that they’re desperate but this seems particularly desperate.

Just the facts, even if provided out of thread context, in answer to: Bombs? No derailment or deflection or insult intended.

ok

 

[joaquinmiller]

Cohen and Gates will both testify they were in the meeting when Trump okayed the Veselnitskaya meeting in advance.

 

[Care4all]

Cohen used his own money to pay her. NOT a crime, and ZERO evidence Trump gave him money from the campaign dumb ass.

Trump says it was his money

Get he story straight

Last I checked it is not illegal to pay off a blackmailer. There is ZERO evidence he used campaign funds to do it. Therefore NO crime.

Absent the campaign, would the candidate have incurred the expense? If the answer is yes, Trump is in the clear. If the answer is no, then it is a campaign violation. In this case, we have a billionaire that has spent more time in court than just about anyone. Big CEO's, Billionaires, entertainers and athletes all have been known to make settlements like this one. Michael Jackson and on and on. For many, Trump included, this has probably been normal business for him for years. As the attorney for John Edwards said, its not illegal to be a pig. Trump is very famous and very rich. This is an easy defense for Trump, and is why this will never go anywhere from here.

not really....

one, he f'd them 10 years ago, he waited till 3 weeks or so before the election to pay them off...

two, we've got Cohen and tapes he made of Trump directed arrangements for payments by Cohen for the purpose of keeping them silent during his presidential run because they both could hurt his campaign....

three, we've got the Trump ''Trust''.... which is the Trump Foundation.... trump's alleged Charity, being instructed by the Trump Organization, to pay Cohen back for the payoff he made to Stormy.... (the Trump F Charity was forced by NY State to shut down because of their criminal behavior shortly after that...)

and fake invoices by Cohen to the Trump Org for repayments of the money as well....

so, there is a lot more crooked stuff going on than I could have ever imagined!!!

 

[Care4all]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

Oh yes it is.
And I'll gladly tell you why.
When you contribute to a campaign a "thing of value" it has to be documented and reported. That doesn't even need to be money.
The women were shushed to affect the outcome of the election, so that, by definition, makes it part of the campaign.

Say the president paid with his own money (which it looks like he did). They call that "in kind". It was money paid to affect the outcome of the election, so it was money paid to his campaign.
And it was unreported which means campaign finance laws were broken.
All he had to do was report it.
What's funny is how alike it is to Clinton's BJ. If Bill had reported his BJ from the beginning, Republicans never could have cornered him into lying to his wife.
Ergo,
If Trump had reported his payoffs to his hookers, he never would have broken campaign finance laws.

But Bill never had to pay for his BJ. He got that for free.

And what if he made the NDA payments to avoid personal embarrassment, in whole or in part?

.

Which is what John Edwards did being married and all.

Only Trump was taped. And his timing was two weeks before the election.

And there were multiple women involved.

Edwards problem is he used campaign money to make the payoff, which is illegal. If there was a personal benefit, it's not a legitimate campaign expense. Trump gained a personal benefit, so it can't legally be a campaign expense. If it wasn't a legal campaign expense and wasn't paid with campaign money, there is no violation of campaign finance law.

.

it was a crime, cohen plead guilty to them, the judge accepted it being a crime by accepting the guilty plea of cohen.

 

[Lewdog]

Cohen and Gates will both testify they were in the meeting when Trump okayed the Veselnitskaya meeting in advance.

Cohen or Omarosa might even have it on tape.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

Oh yes it is.
And I'll gladly tell you why.
When you contribute to a campaign a "thing of value" it has to be documented and reported. That doesn't even need to be money.
The women were shushed to affect the outcome of the election, so that, by definition, makes it part of the campaign.

Say the president paid with his own money (which it looks like he did). They call that "in kind". It was money paid to affect the outcome of the election, so it was money paid to his campaign.
And it was unreported which means campaign finance laws were broken.
All he had to do was report it.
What's funny is how alike it is to Clinton's BJ. If Bill had reported his BJ from the beginning, Republicans never could have cornered him into lying to his wife.
Ergo,
If Trump had reported his payoffs to his hookers, he never would have broken campaign finance laws.

But Bill never had to pay for his BJ. He got that for free.

And what if he made the NDA payments to avoid personal embarrassment, in whole or in part?

.

Which is what John Edwards did being married and all.

Only Trump was taped. And his timing was two weeks before the election.

And there were multiple women involved.

Edwards problem is he used campaign money to make the payoff, which is illegal. If there was a personal benefit, it's not a legitimate campaign expense. Trump gained a personal benefit, so it can't legally be a campaign expense. If it wasn't a legal campaign expense and wasn't paid with campaign money, there is no violation of campaign finance law.

.

Trump’s lawyer pled guilty to campaign finance violations. I suppose Trump ass kissers would have us believe that he was working for Hillary?

Did he, cite the statute he plead guilty to. While your at it, explain how there was no personal benefit to Trump.

.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

Oh yes it is.
And I'll gladly tell you why.
When you contribute to a campaign a "thing of value" it has to be documented and reported. That doesn't even need to be money.
The women were shushed to affect the outcome of the election, so that, by definition, makes it part of the campaign.

Say the president paid with his own money (which it looks like he did). They call that "in kind". It was money paid to affect the outcome of the election, so it was money paid to his campaign.
And it was unreported which means campaign finance laws were broken.
All he had to do was report it.
What's funny is how alike it is to Clinton's BJ. If Bill had reported his BJ from the beginning, Republicans never could have cornered him into lying to his wife.
Ergo,
If Trump had reported his payoffs to his hookers, he never would have broken campaign finance laws.

But Bill never had to pay for his BJ. He got that for free.

And what if he made the NDA payments to avoid personal embarrassment, in whole or in part?

.

Which is what John Edwards did being married and all.

Only Trump was taped. And his timing was two weeks before the election.

And there were multiple women involved.

Edwards problem is he used campaign money to make the payoff, which is illegal. If there was a personal benefit, it's not a legitimate campaign expense. Trump gained a personal benefit, so it can't legally be a campaign expense. If it wasn't a legal campaign expense and wasn't paid with campaign money, there is no violation of campaign finance law.

.

it was a crime, cohen plead guilty to them, the judge accepted it being a crime by accepting the guilty plea of cohen.

Cohen is composing to satisfy the prosecutor. By law if there was a personal benefit to be had in the transaction, it isn't a legal campaign expense. It couldn't be a campaign finance violation unless campaign funds were used.

.

 

[Lewdog]

Oh yes it is.
And I'll gladly tell you why.
When you contribute to a campaign a "thing of value" it has to be documented and reported. That doesn't even need to be money.
The women were shushed to affect the outcome of the election, so that, by definition, makes it part of the campaign.

Say the president paid with his own money (which it looks like he did). They call that "in kind". It was money paid to affect the outcome of the election, so it was money paid to his campaign.
And it was unreported which means campaign finance laws were broken.
All he had to do was report it.
What's funny is how alike it is to Clinton's BJ. If Bill had reported his BJ from the beginning, Republicans never could have cornered him into lying to his wife.
Ergo,
If Trump had reported his payoffs to his hookers, he never would have broken campaign finance laws.

But Bill never had to pay for his BJ. He got that for free.

And what if he made the NDA payments to avoid personal embarrassment, in whole or in part?

.

Which is what John Edwards did being married and all.

Only Trump was taped. And his timing was two weeks before the election.

And there were multiple women involved.

Edwards problem is he used campaign money to make the payoff, which is illegal. If there was a personal benefit, it's not a legitimate campaign expense. Trump gained a personal benefit, so it can't legally be a campaign expense. If it wasn't a legal campaign expense and wasn't paid with campaign money, there is no violation of campaign finance law.

.

it was a crime, cohen plead guilty to them, the judge accepted it being a crime by accepting the guilty plea of cohen.

Cohen is composing to satisfy the prosecutor. By law if there was a personal benefit to be had in the transaction, it isn't a legal campaign expense. It couldn't be a campaign finance violation unless campaign funds were used.

.

That's bs. If Cohen gets caught lying to get a lighter sentence, it backfires and he gets a LONGER sentence. He has every reason NOT to lie.

 

[Supposn]

There's a some more or less slippery slime participating in all vocations. Politics and politicians are not unique in this respect.
Possibly there are no limits as to how much an individual or an entity may contribute to each candidate, or to each individual political organization.
Apparently, since the Supreme Court's decision in favor of Citizens United, there's no limit on the aggregate an individual entity can bid or purchase at political auctions. There effectively no limit upon what can be bid and what will be the purchase price in politics as in many other things. Some very slimy people drafted our election laws and regulations.

I don't believe that a democratic republic obtains poorer government than its voters deserve, but we sometimes get all that we deserve. President Donald Trump is the President we elected and deserve.
Disrespectfully, Supposn

 

[Care4all]

this explains it better!

READ MORE HERE: Trump's response to Michael Cohen's plea deal, dissected - CNNPolitics

Snipet


1. Trump says he knew about the payments -- $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels, $150,000 from American Media Inc. to ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal -- "later on." That runs directly counter to what Trump said in April when asked about the Cohen payment to Daniels. Here's that exchange:

Reporter: "Did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?"
Trump: "No."
Reporter: "Then why did Michael Cohen make [the payment], if there was no truth to her allegations?"
Trump: "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael's my attorney, and you'll have to ask Michael."
Reporter: "Do you know where he got the money to make that payment?"
Trump: "No I don't know."

Reporter: "Do you know where he got the money to make that payment?"
Trump: "No I don't know."

Trump's latest statement also contradicts the audio tape released by Cohen last month that contains an apparent September 2016 conversation between Trump and his one-time lawyer in which a payment to David Pecker -- the head of AMI, the National Enquirer's parent company -- is discussed. That payment was to buy the rights to McDougal's story, which Pecker, a longtime Trump friend, had purchased but refused to run.

If you can't figure out how all of these statements can be true, I'll solve it for you: They can't.

2. Trump is trying to draw some sort of distinction between paying the hush money out of campaign funds and paying them out of his own pocket. But, either way, it's illegal. Assuming Trump used his personal money to repay Cohen -- and remember both Trump and Cohen have insisted in the past that none of the money came from Trump, which is, of course, not true -- then he was making an illegal loan to his campaign. You can't dole out tens of thousands of dollars for the express purpose of silencing people with damaging allegations right before voters vote -- and then never report it. (Here's the Federal Election Commission's guidance governing loans by a candidate to his or her campaign.)

3. The comparison to Obama's fine by the FEC is a total and complete straw man. It is true that Obama's campaign was fined a hefty $375,000 by the FEC in 2013 for failure to file 48-hour contribution reports -- donations made within the final weeks of a campaign -- that totaled $1.3 million. The oversight was discovered in an audit of the Obama campaign.
Compare that fine to what is alleged here: A candidate for president directed the end-run of campaign finance laws in hopes of suppressing allegations made by women about romantic dalliances. He did so, according to Cohen, with the express purpose of influencing the election. That's not even in the same universe as a candidate's campaign being fined for not correctly reporting $1.3 million in donations from the final days of an election.

The Point: Trump, at some level deep down, knows that Cohen's plea deal -- specifically as it relates to the hush money payoffs -- is a big, big problem for him. But he also knows one tactic when backed into a corner: Fight like hell with whatever you can lay your hands on. That's what this response to Fox News amounts to. Unfortunately for Trump, none of these punches land. In fact, he whiffs badly on them all.

 

[OKTexas]

And what if he made the NDA payments to avoid personal embarrassment, in whole or in part?

.

Which is what John Edwards did being married and all.

Only Trump was taped. And his timing was two weeks before the election.

And there were multiple women involved.

Edwards problem is he used campaign money to make the payoff, which is illegal. If there was a personal benefit, it's not a legitimate campaign expense. Trump gained a personal benefit, so it can't legally be a campaign expense. If it wasn't a legal campaign expense and wasn't paid with campaign money, there is no violation of campaign finance law.

.

it was a crime, cohen plead guilty to them, the judge accepted it being a crime by accepting the guilty plea of cohen.

Cohen is composing to satisfy the prosecutor. By law if there was a personal benefit to be had in the transaction, it isn't a legal campaign expense. It couldn't be a campaign finance violation unless campaign funds were used.

.

That's bs. If Cohen gets caught lying to get a lighter sentence, it backfires and he gets a LONGER sentence. He has every reason NOT to lie.

I guess some folks can be talked into pleading to just about anything. There can't be a conspiracy related to the NDA's, because Cohen was Trumps attorney and acting on Trumps behalf. Cohen also had a fiduciary responsibility to only act in Trumps best interest, if he allowed Trump to go down the road to criminality, Trump has a cause of action against Cohen in the tens of millions.

.

 

[Lewdog]

Which is what John Edwards did being married and all.

Only Trump was taped. And his timing was two weeks before the election.

And there were multiple women involved.

Edwards problem is he used campaign money to make the payoff, which is illegal. If there was a personal benefit, it's not a legitimate campaign expense. Trump gained a personal benefit, so it can't legally be a campaign expense. If it wasn't a legal campaign expense and wasn't paid with campaign money, there is no violation of campaign finance law.

.

it was a crime, cohen plead guilty to them, the judge accepted it being a crime by accepting the guilty plea of cohen.

Cohen is composing to satisfy the prosecutor. By law if there was a personal benefit to be had in the transaction, it isn't a legal campaign expense. It couldn't be a campaign finance violation unless campaign funds were used.

.

That's bs. If Cohen gets caught lying to get a lighter sentence, it backfires and he gets a LONGER sentence. He has every reason NOT to lie.

I guess some folks can be talked into pleading to just about anything. There can't be a conspiracy related to the NDA's, because Cohen was Trumps attorney and acting on Trumps behalf. Cohen also had a fiduciary responsibility to only act in Trumps best interest, if he allowed Trump to go down the road to criminality, Trump has a cause of action against Cohen in the tens of millions.

.

Yes he can... because the women were paid off using an LLC, and Trump is on tape discussing the payoff doing it. He conspired with Cohen to break campaign finance laws.

 

[Likkmee]

Its just business. You pay them to open their mouth ( or other orifii) and then you pay them to shut it, and keep it shut.
It's no different than eating at a Mezkin restaurant. The experience is absolutely wonderful and the next day it all turns to shit.

 

[frigidweirdo]

this explains it better!

READ MORE HERE: Trump's response to Michael Cohen's plea deal, dissected - CNNPolitics

Snipet


1. Trump says he knew about the payments -- $130,000 to porn star Stormy Daniels, $150,000 from American Media Inc. to ex-Playboy model Karen McDougal -- "later on." That runs directly counter to what Trump said in April when asked about the Cohen payment to Daniels. Here's that exchange:

Reporter: "Did you know about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels?"
Trump: "No."
Reporter: "Then why did Michael Cohen make [the payment], if there was no truth to her allegations?"
Trump: "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael's my attorney, and you'll have to ask Michael."
Reporter: "Do you know where he got the money to make that payment?"
Trump: "No I don't know."

Reporter: "Do you know where he got the money to make that payment?"
Trump: "No I don't know."

Trump's latest statement also contradicts the audio tape released by Cohen last month that contains an apparent September 2016 conversation between Trump and his one-time lawyer in which a payment to David Pecker -- the head of AMI, the National Enquirer's parent company -- is discussed. That payment was to buy the rights to McDougal's story, which Pecker, a longtime Trump friend, had purchased but refused to run.

If you can't figure out how all of these statements can be true, I'll solve it for you: They can't.

2. Trump is trying to draw some sort of distinction between paying the hush money out of campaign funds and paying them out of his own pocket. But, either way, it's illegal. Assuming Trump used his personal money to repay Cohen -- and remember both Trump and Cohen have insisted in the past that none of the money came from Trump, which is, of course, not true -- then he was making an illegal loan to his campaign. You can't dole out tens of thousands of dollars for the express purpose of silencing people with damaging allegations right before voters vote -- and then never report it. (Here's the Federal Election Commission's guidance governing loans by a candidate to his or her campaign.)

3. The comparison to Obama's fine by the FEC is a total and complete straw man. It is true that Obama's campaign was fined a hefty $375,000 by the FEC in 2013 for failure to file 48-hour contribution reports -- donations made within the final weeks of a campaign -- that totaled $1.3 million. The oversight was discovered in an audit of the Obama campaign.
Compare that fine to what is alleged here: A candidate for president directed the end-run of campaign finance laws in hopes of suppressing allegations made by women about romantic dalliances. He did so, according to Cohen, with the express purpose of influencing the election. That's not even in the same universe as a candidate's campaign being fined for not correctly reporting $1.3 million in donations from the final days of an election.

The Point: Trump, at some level deep down, knows that Cohen's plea deal -- specifically as it relates to the hush money payoffs -- is a big, big problem for him. But he also knows one tactic when backed into a corner: Fight like hell with whatever you can lay your hands on. That's what this response to Fox News amounts to. Unfortunately for Trump, none of these punches land. In fact, he whiffs badly on them all.

He just continues to say the thing that he thinks is most convenient at any one time.

He knows his supporters won't care.

But he keeps digging his own hole.

Now he's got this massive lie, the Democratic candidate can literally say "so, how do we know you're not lying" every single time Trump opens his mouth.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Unanswered of course is why anyone still supports a whore monger who surrounded himself with felons

This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. Please stay on topic.

 

[Faun]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

What was the purpose of keeping Stormy Daniels quiet about their purported affair, just weeks before a national election?

 

[Lewdog]

This guy on CNN just said that the Trump/Cohen tape doesn't count because it was about Karen McDougal and that American Media made the payment not Cohen... even though Cohen is clearly talking about paying using HIS LLC. Holy cow.

 

[Likkmee]

I'm not sure why, but it seems the Democrats think that paying off a woman to be quiet about a scandal is somehow illegal. Well, it isn't.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering what any of this has to do with collusion with Russia...

What was the purpose of keeping Stormy Daniels quiet about their purported affair, just weeks before a national election?

Simple. Hillary's people were scheduled to attend the auction too. Early bid was supposed to win. didn't work out too well...OK. I imagine Strormy is cool with whatever deal REALLY took place